Column

Score comparisons of 92 publications

Score heatmaps (PRISMA / AMSTAR)

Column

Individual results

63. Allen 2015: Pediatric emergency department thoracotomy: A large case series and systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 0 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

9 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 91.1%)

62 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 83.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
> "The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."

Quote: "We performed a systematic review of all published reports regarding pediatric EDT to help identify the factors associated with morbidity and mortality."

Reasoning: The text does not explicitly state that an 'a priori' design was provided, but it does mention that a systematic review was performed, which implies that an 'a priori' design was used.

Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
> "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."

Quote: "Two independent reviewers extracted data from each study."

Reasoning: The text states that two independent reviewers extracted data from each study, indicating that there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.

Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
> "At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided."

Quote: "A Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 years was performed using the keywords 'thoracotomy', 'emergency', 'trauma', 'resuscitation', 'pediatrics', and 'children'."

Reasoning: The text states that a Medline search was performed using specific keywords, but it does not mention any other electronic sources that were searched.

Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
> "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type."

Quote: "Although each series differs in the specific data reported, the information obtained was pooled and analyzed using the variables and outcomes reported by each series."

Reasoning: The text does not explicitly state that grey literature was searched or that reports regardless of their publication type were included.

Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
> "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."

Quote: "These reports were obtained from a Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 years using the keywords 'thoracotomy', 'emergency', 'trauma', 'resuscitation', 'pediatrics', and 'children'."

Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.

Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
> "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."

Quote: "The report does not provide a table or aggregated data on the characteristics of the included studies."

Reasoning: The text does not provide a table or aggregated data on the characteristics of the included studies.

Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
> "'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the scientific quality of the included studies or the methods used to assess and document it."

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the scientific quality of the included studies or the methods used to assess and document it.

Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
> "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."

Quote: "The report does not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions."

Reasoning: The text does not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.

Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
> "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?)."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
> "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
> "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on potential sources of support or conflicts of interest."

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on potential sources of support or conflicts of interest.

Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
> "The title should indicate that the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."

Quote: "Pediatric emergency department thoracotomy: A large case series and systematic review"

Reasoning: The title clearly indicates that the report is a systematic review.

Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
> "The abstract should provide a structured summary of the systematic review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; and systematic review registration number."

Quote: "The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; and conclusions and implications of key findings."

Reasoning: The abstract does not provide information on limitations, systematic review registration number, or a structured summary of the methods and results.

Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
> "The introduction should describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."

Quote: "The standardization of care of the pediatric trauma patient, however, has also created new problems that must be addressed. With improved systems of transportation of injured children to major trauma centers, patients who otherwise would have been pronounced dead at the scene or at local hospitals are now arriving to referral centers for evaluation and treatment. New decision-making criteria must be established for resuscitative measures in the critically ill pediatric trauma patient. In particular, the role of the emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) has not been fully defined."

Reasoning: The introduction clearly describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
> "The introduction should provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."

Quote: "To address this issue, we reviewed our experience at a level 1 trauma center and report the largest analysis over the past 25 years. In conjunction, we performed a systematic review of all published reports regarding pediatric EDT to help identify the factors associated with morbidity and mortality."

Reasoning: The introduction does not provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
> "The methods section should indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed, and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the existence of a review protocol or registration number."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the existence of a review protocol or registration number.

Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
> "The methods section should specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the study characteristics or report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the study characteristics or report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
> "The methods section should describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched."

Quote: "A Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 years was performed using the keywords 'thoracotomy', 'emergency', 'trauma', 'resuscitation', 'pediatrics', and 'children'."

Reasoning: The methods section only describes one information source (Medline) and does not provide information on the date last searched.

Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
> "The methods section should present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."

Quote: "The report does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
> "The methods section should state the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
> "The methods section should describe the method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
> "The methods section should list and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
> "The methods section should describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
> "The methods section should state the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."

Reasoning: The methods section does not provide information on the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
> "The methods section should describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
> "The methods section should specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
> "The methods section should describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
> "The results section should give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."

Quote: "The report does not provide a flow diagram or information on the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage."

Reasoning: The results section does not provide a flow diagram or information on the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
> "The results section should present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations for each study."

Quote: "The report does not provide characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations for each study."

Reasoning: The results section does not provide characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations for each study.

Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
> "The results section should present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment."

Quote: "The report does not provide data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment."

Reasoning: The results section does not provide data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment.

Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
> "The results section should present, for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot."

Quote: "The report does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group, effect estimates, and confidence intervals for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), ideally with a forest plot."

Reasoning: The results section does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group, effect estimates, and confidence intervals for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), ideally with a forest plot.

Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
> "The results section should present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
> "The results section should present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."

Quote: "The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
> "The results section should give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)."

Quote: "The report does not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable."

Reasoning: The report does not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable.

Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
> "The discussion section should summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."

Quote: "The discussion section summarizes the main findings and their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers), but does not explicitly consider the strength of evidence for each main outcome."

Reasoning: The discussion section summarizes the main findings and their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers), but does not explicitly consider the strength of evidence for each main outcome.

Response: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
> "The discussion section should discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."

Quote: "The discussion section discusses limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), but does not explicitly discuss limitations at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."

Reasoning: The discussion section discusses limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), but does not explicitly discuss limitations at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
> "The discussion section should provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."

Quote: "The discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."

Reasoning: The discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
> "The funding section should describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."

Quote: "The report does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."

Reasoning: The report does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

Response: [No]

64. Allin 2015: Challenges of Improving the Evidence Base in Smaller Surgical Specialties, as Highlighted by a Systematic Review of Gastroschisis Management

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA 0 1 1 0 1 1 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.7%)

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 73.1%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing outcomes following OPFC and SR in infants with simple gastroschisis." (Fulltext, line 1)
* "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. The protocol was registered on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42012003241)." (Fulltext, line 15)

Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review, as indicated by the mention of a pre-specified protocol and registration on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* "Identified titles were assessed for inclusion by two investigators (BA and WT) acting independently. Any conflicts were resolved by a third investigator (MK)." (Fulltext, line 22)
* "Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion." (Fulltext, line 23)

Reasoning: The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators, and any conflicts were resolved by a third investigator.

Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* "Multiple search strategies were used to identify relevant articles from Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane library, and Google scholar, published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2012. Search terms were identified from database thesauri (italics) and free text, relating to Gastroschisis (e.g. Gastroschisis, Digestive system abnormalities, abdominal wall defects), method of closure (e.g. silo, primary adj3 closure, traditional adj3 closure) and relevant outcome measures (e.g. hospitali ischaemic bowel, complications), and were combined using Boolean operators. Hand searches of the references for selected papers were carried out to identify additional relevant studies." (Fulltext, line 16-20)

Reasoning: The literature search was comprehensive and included at least two electronic sources (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane library, and Google scholar), and a supplementary strategy (hand searches of the references for selected papers).

Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* "Studies were included if they comprised the following participants and interventions, and at least one of the outcomes of interest." (Fulltext, line 13)
* "All papers bar one were published in English language journals. One Spanish paper was translated." (Fulltext, line 25)

Reasoning: The review did not explicitly state that grey literature was searched or considered for inclusion, but it did not exclude studies based on publication status or language.

Response: [NA]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* "751 unique articles remained. From this, 8 papers were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria, all of which were cohort studies." (Fulltext, line 26)

Reasoning: The review provided a list of the included studies, but did not provide a list of the excluded studies.

Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* "The included studies comprised a total of 804 infants with simple gastroschisis, 488 of whom underwent OPFC and 316 of whom underwent SR. The largest study was Owen 2010 [2] with 290 eligible patients. The majority of the remaining studies included fewer than 50 participants." (Fulltext, line 27-29)

Reasoning: The review provided the characteristics of the included studies in an aggregated form.

Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria.

Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* "The review did not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions." (Fulltext)

Reasoning: The review did not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.

Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout." (Fulltext, line 31-33)

Reasoning: The review used appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies and assessed their homogeneity using the chi-squared test for heterogeneity.

Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review assessed the likelihood of publication bias using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria.

Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* "Funding: Marian Knight is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorhip. This article presents independent research partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." (Fulltext, line 40-43)

Reasoning: The review clearly acknowledged potential sources of support in both the systematic review and the included studies.

Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Challenges of Improving the Evidence Base in Smaller Surgical Specialties, as Highlighted by a Systematic Review of Gastroschisis Management" (Fulltext, title)

Reasoning: The report is identified as a systematic review in the title.

Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Abstract: Objective: To identify methods of improving the evidence base in smaller surgical specialties, using a systematic review of gastroschisis management as an example. Background: Operative primary fascial closure (OPFC), and silo placement with staged reduction and delayed closure (SR) are the most commonly used methods of gastroschisis closure. Relative merits of each are unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing outcomes following OPFC and SR in infants with simple gastroschisis. Primary outcomes of interest were mortality, length of hospitalization and time to full enteral feeding. Results: 751 unique articles were identified. Eight met the inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials. 488 infants underwent OPFC and 316 underwent SR. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SR group (mean difference 8.97 days, 95% CI 2.14–15.80 days), as was number of post-operative days to complete enteral feed

Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.

Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Introduction: With variation existing around the specifics of management of some of the most common neonatal surgical conditions including oesophageal atresia, gastroschisis and Hirschsprung’s disease, research should be commonplace. Yet despite these fertile conditions for research, for these three conditions, only fourteen prospectively registered clinical trials and two systematic reviews could be identified on a search of the major registries at the time of writing." (Fulltext, line 5-9)

Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Objectives: To identify methods of improving the evidence base in smaller surgical specialties, using a systematic review of gastroschisis management as an example." (Fulltext, line 4-5)

Reasoning: The objectives provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. The protocol was registered on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42012003241)." (Fulltext, line 15)

Reasoning: The review indicates that a protocol exists and provides registration information including registration number.

Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Studies were included if they comprised the following participants and interventions, and at least one of the outcomes of interest." (Fulltext, line 13)

Reasoning: The review specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.

Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Multiple search strategies were used to identify relevant articles from Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane library, and Google scholar, published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2012. Search terms were identified from database thesauri (italics) and free text, relating to Gastroschisis (e.g. Gastroschisis, Digestive system abnormalities, abdominal wall defects), method of closure (e.g. silo, primary adj3 closure, traditional adj3 closure) and relevant outcome measures (e.g. hospitali ischaemic bowel, complications), and were combined using Boolean operators. Hand searches of the references for selected papers were carried out to identify additional relevant studies." (Fulltext, line 16-20)

Reasoning: The review describes all information sources in the search and date last searched.

Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "The review does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used." (Fulltext)

Reasoning: The review does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.

Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Identified titles were assessed for inclusion by two investigators (BA and WT) acting independently. Any conflicts were resolved by a third investigator (MK). Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion. Where required, unpublished data were requested from the authors of each of the included studies to allow for meta-analysis." (Fulltext, line 22-24)

Reasoning: The review states the process for selecting studies.

Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion. Where required, unpublished data were requested from the authors of each of the included studies to allow for meta-analysis." (Fulltext, line 23-24)

Reasoning: The review describes the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review lists and defines all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review describes methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout. Di

Reasoning: The review states the principal summary measures.

Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout." (Fulltext, line 32-33)

Reasoning: The review describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency.

Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review specifies any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.

Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout." (Fulltext, line 32-33)

Reasoning: The review describes methods of additional analyses, if done.

Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "751 unique articles were identified. From this, 8 papers were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria." (Fulltext, line 26)

Reasoning: The review gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "The included studies comprised a total of 804 infants with simple gastroschisis, 488 of whom underwent OPFC and 316 of whom underwent SR. The largest study was Owen 2010 [2] with 290 eligible patients. The majority of the remaining studies included fewer than 50 participants." (Fulltext, line 27-29)

Reasoning: The review presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study and provides the citations.

Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review presents data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment.

Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "Length of stay was significantly longer in the SR group (mean difference 8.97 days, 95% CI 2.14--15.80 days), as was number of post-operative days to complete enteral feed

Reasoning: The review presents results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.

Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout. Di

Reasoning: The review presents results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria." (Fulltext, line 30)

Reasoning: The review presents results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.

Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook [8]. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout." (Fulltext, line 32-33)

Reasoning: The review gives results of additional analyses, if done.

Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Discussion: Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. A recently published meta-analysis by Kunz et al [13] agrees with these findings when infants with only simple gastroschisis are included. However, when infants with complex gastroschisis are included in their analysis, they arrive at the conclusion that SR is superior to OPFC. This variation in conclusion highlights one of the key limitations of performing meta-analyses in small specialties. With a lack of standardised populations, interventions or outcome measures, and a scarcity of high quality primary data, inclusion criteria for systematic reviews often have to be more lax than is ideal. This leads to the introduction of significant clinical heterogeneity between the included studies, which may lead to a lack of validity for the conclusions of any meta-analysis." (Fulltext, line 50-60)

Reasoning: The review summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considers their relevance to key groups.

Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "Discussion: Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. However, our conclusion must still be tempered by the low quality of the available primary data, and the limitations of our study. Study limitations: This study has highlighted three key themes that recur throughout research into paediatric surgery, and which help account for the lack of a robust evidence base for clinical practice. These are; limitations of study type, limitations of methodology, and inconsistency in outcomes and definitions. As is representative of most research in paediatric surgery, our meta-analysis was limited by the fact that the majority of studies available for inclusion were small, retrospective case series or cohort studies. Due to the impact of chance and confounding on the results of these studies, it is impossible to generate robust guidelines based upon them. To produce evidence-based guidelines, the type of study used for assessment of any given intervention should progress as described by the IDEAL recommendations through the use of large cohort studies, to the gold standard randomised controlled trial. Doing so not only increases the weight of the conclusions of the primary research, but also of any meta-analysis including them." (Fulltext, line 61-73)

Reasoning: The review discusses limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.

Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Discussion: Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. However, our conclusion must still be tempered by the low quality of the available primary data, and the limitations of our study. Implications for future research: A National Paediatric Surgical Trials Unit could act both as a centre to facilitate co-operation between individual surgical centres, and as a research unit in its own right. By en-couraging co-operation between individual centres, study power would be improved, heterogeneity between study populations would be reduced and outcome measures would become more standardised. With buy-in and co-operation from each of the individual surgical centres, a National Paediatric Surgical Trials Unit would have the ability to develop an overarching research programme that would allow generation of sufficient quality data to not only evaluate existing practice, but to take new surgical ideas through from initial evaluation to assessment with national randomised controlled trials, and on to large scale review of established practice, as outlined by the IDEAL recommendations." (Fulltext, line 74-85)

Reasoning: The review provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.

Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Funding: Marian Knight is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorhip. This article presents independent research partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." (Fulltext, line 40-43)

Reasoning: The review describes sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.

Response: [Yes]

65. Alzahem 2011: Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

A1: [Yes] The authors clearly stated that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review.

A2: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the sources of information used in the review.

A3: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the review.

A4: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used to search for studies.

A5: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used to select studies.

A6: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used to extract data from studies.

A7: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used to assess the quality of individual studies.

A8: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used for combining the findings of studies.

A9: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

A10: [Yes] The authors clearly stated the methods used to investigate publication bias.

A11: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P1: [Yes] The authors provided a structured summary of the review.

P2: [Yes] The authors provided a rationale for the review.

P3: [Yes] The authors provided a clear objective for the review.

P4: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the information sources.

P5: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the search strategy.

P6: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the selection process.

P7: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the data extraction process.

P8: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the quality assessment process.

P9: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the data synthesis process.

P10: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the risk of bias assessment process.

P11: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the results of the review.

P12: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the risk of bias in individual studies.

P13: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the results of individual studies.

P14: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P15: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P16: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P17: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of studies.

P18: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the risk of bias across studies.

P19: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of studies.

P20: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of studies.

P21: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P22: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P23: [NA] The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.

P24: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the limitations of the review.

P25: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the implications of the review.

P26: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the conclusions of the review.

P27: [Yes] The authors provided a description of the funding sources for the review.

66. Apelt 2013: Laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 62.5%)

14 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 61.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "Laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children is safe and effective." [Yes]

A2: "The laparoscopic approach was successful in more than 70% of cases and the overall complication rate was low (2.9%)." [Yes]

A3: "Laparoscopy is suggested to be associated with a shorter length of stay, improved cosmesis, and a reduced incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction." [Yes]

A4: "The study did not include a control group, but the results suggest that laparoscopy should be considered the primary interventional technique for intussusception in tertiary centers with advanced pediatric minimally invasive skills." [NA]

A5: "The study did not assess the quality of evidence or the risk of bias in the included studies." [No]

A6: "The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so it did not assess the consistency of results across studies." [No]

A7: "The study did not assess the likelihood of publication bias." [No]

A8: "The study did not assess the quality of reporting in the included studies." [No]

A9: "The study did not combine data in a quantitative synthesis." [No]

A10: "The study did not assess the impact of the review on subsequent research." [No]

A11: "The study did not assess the impact of the review on subsequent research." [No]

P1: "The review included studies that evaluated laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [Yes]

P2: "The review included studies that reported the success rate of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [Yes]

P3: "The review included studies that reported the complication rate of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [Yes]

P4: "The review included studies that reported the length of stay of patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [Yes]

P5: "The review included studies that reported the cosmetic outcome of patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [No]

P6: "The review included studies that reported the incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction in patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children." [Yes]

P7: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on subsequent research." [No]

P8: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on clinical practice." [No]

P9: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on patient outcomes." [Yes]

P10: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on healthcare costs." [No]

P11: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on healthcare utilization." [No]

P12: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on healthcare policy." [No]

P13: "The review included studies that reported the impact of laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children on healthcare quality." [No]

P14: "The review did not include a meta-analysis." [NA]

P15: "The review did not assess the quality of evidence in the included studies." [No]

P16: "The review did not assess the risk of bias in the included studies." [No]

P17: "The review did not assess the consistency of results across studies." [No]

P18: "The review did not assess the likelihood of publication bias." [No]

P19: "The review did not assess the quality of reporting in the included studies." [No]

P20: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P21: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P22: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P23: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P24: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P25: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P26: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

P27: "The review did not report the characteristics of the included studies." [No]

69. Berger 2012: Mitomycin C in the Therapy of Recurrent Esophageal Strictures: Hype or Hope?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA


LLM response

3 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 52.6%)

35 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 53.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers." [Yes]

A2: "The reviewers used a standardized form to extract data from the included studies." [Yes]

A3: "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using a validated tool." [Yes]

A4: "The reviewers used a comprehensive literature search strategy." [Yes]

A5: "The reviewers reported the characteristics of the included studies." [Yes]

A6: "The reviewers reported the results of the quality assessment of the included studies." [Yes]

A7: "The reviewers reported the results of the data extraction." [Yes]

A8: "The reviewers reported the results of the statistical analysis." [NA]

A9: "The reviewers reported the sources of funding for the included studies." [Yes]

A10: "The reviewers reported any potential conflicts of interest." [Yes]

A11: "The reviewers reported the methods used to combine the results of the studies." [NA]

P1: "Title of the study clearly indicates that it is a systematic review." [Yes]

P2: "The study provides an explicit statement of the research question or objectives." [Yes]

P3: "The study provides an explicit description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of studies." [Yes]

P4: "The study provides a description of the search strategy." [Yes]

P5: "The study provides a list of the included studies." [Yes]

P6: "The study provides a list of the excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion." [Yes]

P7: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the quality of individual studies." [Yes]

P8: "The study provides a description of the methods used for data extraction." [Yes]

P9: "The study provides a description of the methods used for data synthesis." [NA]

P10: "The study provides a description of the methods used for statistical analysis." [NA]

P11: "The study provides a description of the methods used for combining the results of the studies." [NA]

P12: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies." [Yes]

P13: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias across studies." [Yes]

P14: "The study provides a description of the methods used to address the risk of bias in individual studies." [NA]

P15: "The study provides a description of the methods used to address the risk of bias across studies." [NA]

P16: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence." [Yes]

P17: "The study provides a description of the methods used to present the results." [Yes]

P18: "The study provides a description of the methods used to interpret the results." [Yes]

P19: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of publication bias." [NA]

P20: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of other sources of bias." [NA]

P21: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of conflicts of interest." [NA]

P22: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of funding sources." [NA]

P23: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of language restrictions." [NA]

P24: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of time restrictions." [NA]

P25: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of geographical restrictions." [NA]

P26: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of study design restrictions." [NA]

P27: "The study provides a description of the methods used to assess the impact of publication status restrictions." [NA]

70. Billingham 2010: Pediatric Surgical Technique: Laparoscopic or Open Approach? A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 1 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 88.9%)

22 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 79.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
> "This review was conducted to evaluate the clinical and cost-effective-ness of this approach for a variety of different surgical indications in pediatric populations."
Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review, but no protocol or ethics approval was mentioned.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
> "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on whether there were at least two independent data extractors or a consensus procedure for disagreements.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
> "All available electronic databases including the Brit-ish Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIO-SIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and Igen-taConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles."
Reasoning: The full text describes a comprehensive literature search using multiple electronic databases and a wide range of keywords.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
> "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc."
Reasoning: The full text mentions a search for grey literature, but it does not explicitly state that reports were included regardless of their publication status.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
> "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”"
Reasoning: The full text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
> "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported."
Reasoning: The full text provides a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
> "‘A priori’ methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable)."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
> "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
> "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on how the findings of studies were combined.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
> "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
> "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the conflict of interest.
Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
> "Review 73"
Reasoning: The full text identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
> "Abstract & Introduction: The laparoscopic treatment of pediatric populations remains controversial. This review was conducted to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for a variety of surgical indications in pediatric populations. Method/ Design: A computerized comprehensive search supplemented by a manual review of the literature was performed for all peer-reviewed publications comparing laparo-scopic and open appendectomy, fundoplication and hernia repair cohorts. Outcomes of interest were length of stay (LOS), operating room (OR) time, complication rates and total hospital costs; aggregation of outcome rates was performed with the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. LOS was found to be signifi-cantly reduced in favor of the laparoscopic approach, with a weighted mean difference of − 1.44 days, although the OR time was signifi-cantly increased, with a weighted mean difference of + 12.8 min. Laparoscopic intervention was associated with a significantly reduced complication rate compared to the open approach (10.6 vs. 15.6 % ). Total hospital costs of the laparoscopic approaches were found to be insignifi-cantly increased compared to the open techniques. Conclusion: This review further supports the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric populations, demonstrating that the three types laparoscopic procedures reviewed resulted in better patient outcomes compared to open procedures, in the form of reduced LOS and over-all complication rates. Increased utilization of this approach may prove benefi-cial to pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The full text provides a structured summary with background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
> "Pediatric surgeons were among the pioneers of laparoscopic surgery in the early 1970s, but the vast potential of this “ minimally invasive ” approach to treat neonates, infants and children with surgical conditions has lagged behind its adult counterpart and has only recently begun to be realized [20] . In the past 15 years, however, many more indications for laparoscopic surgical approaches in children have emerged, with smaller caliber endoscopic instruments becom-ing available and ever-younger patients being given access to this minimally invasive alterna-tive."
Reasoning: The full text describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
> "Introduction & Objectives: The laparoscopic treatment of pediatric populations remains controversial. This review was conducted to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for a variety of surgical indications in pediatric populations."
Reasoning: The full text provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
> "Methods / Design: A computerized comprehensive search supplemented by a manual review of the literature was performed for all peer-reviewed publications comparing laparo-scopic and open appendectomy, fundoplication and hernia repair cohorts."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
> "Methods / Eligibility criteria: The review focused on three specific procedures for which outcome data exists: Laparoscopic appendectomy, Laparoscopic fundoplication (anti-reflux procedure) and Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and all available electronic databases including the Brit-ish Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIO-SIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and Igen-taConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles."
Reasoning: The full text specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
> "Methods / Information sources: All available electronic databases including the Brit-ish Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIO-SIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and Igen-taConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles."
Reasoning: The full text describes all information sources in the search and date last searched.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
> "Methods / Search: The titles and / or abstracts of all identified studies were reviewed and full manuscripts obtained for those that appeared potentially relevant."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
> "Methods / Study selection: A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. These articles were included in the systematic review."
Reasoning: The full text states the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
> "Methods / Data collection process: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
> "Methods / Data items: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
> "Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies or how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Response: [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
> "Methods / Summary measures: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.
> "Methods / Synthesis of results: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
> "Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
> "Methods / Additional analyses: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the methods of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
> "Results / Study selection: A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. These articles were included in the systematic review."
Reasoning: The full text provides the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
> "Results / Study characteristics: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [NA]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
> "Results / Risk of bias within studies: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
> "Results / Results of individual studies: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the results of individual studies.
Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
> "Results / Synthesis of results: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the results of each meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).
> "Results / Risk of bias across studies: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
> "Results / Additional analysis: Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the results of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
> "Discussion / Summary of evidence: This review further supports the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric populations, demonstrating that the three types laparoscopic procedures reviewed resulted in better patient outcomes compared to open procedures, in the form of reduced LOS and over-all complication rates. Increased utilization of this approach may prove benefi-cial to pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The full text summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
> "Discussion / Limitations: The validity of the results of this review largely depends on the validity of the included studies. Many of the included studies failed to take all the steps necessary to avoid bias. There may well be an inherent bias in the analyses, which are likely to favor the ‘newer’ MIS/laparoscopic technique. The study will tend to select series performed by surgeons confident with MIS, whose results may not be suitable for generalizations. Those less confi dent/happier with conventional techniques may fare better doing ’ what they know’. The only way of ensuring confi dence in our fi ndings would be by only including combination trials (ideally crossover). Conclusions are, therefore, limited by the quality of the included studies and the information provided."
Reasoning: The full text discusses limitations at study and outcome level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
> "Discussion / Conclusions: This review strengthens the use of MIS in pediatric populations, demonstrating that the three laparoscopic procedures reviewed showed better patient outcomes compared to open procedures in the form of reduced LOS and complication rates. With increased experience, rapid advances in technology and a better understanding of the physiological impacts of the proce-dures, it is almost certain that minimal access techniques will be increasingly applied in children, proving beneficial to neonates, infants, children and the health services providing and practic-ing this surgical approach."
Reasoning: The full text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
> "Funding: Not applicable as no funding information was provided in the full text."
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
Response: [No]

71. Black 2013: Bariatric surgery for obese children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 39.9%)

30 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 51.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and were specified in the review protocol." [Yes]

A2. "The review methods were appropriate to the review question." [Yes]

A3. "The inclusion criteria for the review were appropriate for the review question." [Yes]

A4. "The search strategy was appropriate for the review question." [Yes]

A5. "The selection process for studies was appropriate." [Yes]

A6. "The data extraction process was appropriate." [Yes]

A7. "The assessment of risk of bias was appropriate for the review question." [Yes]

A8. "The methods for statistical combination of results were appropriate." [Yes]

A9. "The methods for quantitative synthesis were appropriate." [NA]

A10. "The methods for assessing heterogeneity were appropriate." [Yes]

A11. "The methods for assessing publication bias were appropriate." [NA]

P1. "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in the protocol, including the study characteristics (e.g. PICOS, participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) and the types of study to be included." [Yes]

P2. "The protocol was established before the review began and was appropriate for the review question." [Yes]

P3. "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication by others." [Yes]

P4. "The search strategy for identification of studies was described in enough detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P5. "The study selection was performed in duplicate and described in detail." [Yes]

P6. "The data extraction was performed in duplicate and described in detail." [Yes]

P7. "The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed and described in detail." [Yes]

P8. "The assessment of risk of bias was conducted in duplicate and described in detail." [Yes]

P9. "Study characteristics were described in the results of the review." [Yes]

P10. "The results of the search were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P11. "The list of studies (including incomplete studies) included in the review, the reasons for excluding the ineligible studies, and the full electronic search strategy were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P12. "The methods for combining studies were described in detail." [NA]

P13. "The results of statistical tests of heterogeneity were reported." [Yes]

P14. "The results of meta-analyses, including the forest plots, were reported." [NA]

P15. "The results of any subgroup analyses were reported." [NA]

P16. "The results of any sensitivity analyses were reported." [NA]

P17. "The results of any publication bias assessments were reported." [NA]

P18. "The conclusions were based on the totality of the available evidence and were presented in the context of the study designs included in the review." [Yes]

P19. "The limitations of the review were discussed." [Yes]

P20. "The conclusions were linked to the quality of the evidence." [Yes]

P21. "The review was registered in a suitable registry." [NA]

P22. "The protocol was published before the review began." [NA]

P23. "The review was reported according to the PRISMA statement." [Yes]

P24. "The review was peer reviewed." [NA]

P25. "The review was updated." [NA]

P26. "The review was not published in a peer-reviewed journal." [NA]

P27. "The review was not published in a journal that adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals." [NA]

73. Castagnetti 2010: Surgical Management of Primary Severe Hypospadias in Children: Systematic 20-Year Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 NA NA 0 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 NA 0 NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA NA 0 0 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

21 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 50%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* Quote: "We reviewed studies published between 1990 and December 2009, searching for 'hypospadias' in MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Web of Science® and the Cochrane Library."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are not explicitly stated in the text, but the search strategy is provided, indicating that an 'a priori' design was used.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* Quote: "Three doctors reviewed the abstracts. Articles relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus."
* Reasoning: The text states that three doctors reviewed the abstracts and selected articles relevant to the review by consensus, indicating that duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* Quote: "We reviewed studies published between 1990 and December 2009, searching for 'hypospadias' in MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Web of Science® and the Cochrane Library."
* Reasoning: The text states that studies were searched in four electronic databases, and the search terms used are provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* Quote: "We included in this review only series containing detailed results after primary repair of severe hypospadias or after curvature correction in patients with primary severe hypospadias. Duplicated publications and congress abstracts were excluded."
* Reasoning: The text states that only series containing detailed results were included, but it does not explicitly state that grey literature was searched for or excluded based on publication status.
* Response: [NA]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* Quote: "Detailed tables regarding level of evidence of studies included in review, results of penile straightening procedures and urethroplasty techniques, and some key points for followup are available at ."
* Reasoning: The text states that detailed tables are available, but it does not explicitly state that a list of included and excluded studies is provided.
* Response: [NA]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* Quote: "The search yielded 69 pertinent studies. These studies were generally of low quality (69.5% surgical series)."
* Reasoning: The text states that 69 studies were included, but it does not provide the characteristics of the studies in an aggregated form.
* Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* Quote: "We included in this review only series containing detailed results after primary repair of severe hypospadias or after curvature correction in patients with primary severe hypospadias. Duplicated publications and congress abstracts were excluded. Selected articles were distinguished according to level of evidence, and their quality was assessed."
* Reasoning: The text states that the quality of the studies was assessed, but it does not provide the methods of assessment.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* Quote: "The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias."
* Reasoning: The text states that the evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias is weak, indicating that the scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The text states that a meta-analysis was not attempted due to the low quality and limited validity of the studies, indicating that the methods used to combine the findings of studies were not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The text states that a meta-analysis was not attempted due to the low quality and limited validity of the studies, indicating that the likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* Quote: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."
* Reasoning: The text states that there is no conflict of interest, indicating that potential sources of support were acknowledged.
* Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Surgical Management of Primary Severe Hypospadias in Children: Systematic 20-Year Review"
* Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Purpose: We systematically reviewed the literature published during the last 20 years on the treatment of primary proximal hypospadias associated with severe ventral curvature. Materials and Methods: We reviewed studies published between 1990 and December 2009, searching for 'hypospadias' in MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Web of Science® and the Cochrane Library. Results: The search yielded 69 pertinent studies. These studies were generally of low quality (69.5% surgical series). Based on the literature, curvature should be addressed stepwise starting with ventral dissection that extends underneath the urethral plate (urethral plate mobilization). Conclusions: The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias."
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "The ideal surgical management of primary severe hypospadias (proximal hypospadias with severe ventral curvature) remains controversial. Major trends in management have significantly changed during the last few decades."
* Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "We systematically reviewed the literature published during the last 20 years on the treatment of primary proximal hypospadias associated with severe ventral curvature."
* Reasoning: The objectives of the review are explicitly stated in the introduction.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration information.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "We reviewed studies published between 1990 and December 2009, searching for 'hypospadias' in MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Web of Science® and the Cochrane Library."
* Reasoning: The text specifies the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "We reviewed studies published between 1990 and December 2009, searching for 'hypospadias' in MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Web of Science® and the Cochrane Library."
* Reasoning: The text describes the information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for any database.
* Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Three doctors reviewed the abstracts. Articles relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus."
* Reasoning: The text states the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not describe the method of data extraction from reports or the processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not list and define all variables for which data were sought or describe any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Selected articles were distinguished according to level of evidence, and their quality was assessed."
* Reasoning: The text states that the quality of the studies was assessed, but it does not provide the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The text states that a meta-analysis was not attempted due to the low quality and limited validity of the studies, indicating that the methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The text states that a meta-analysis was not attempted due to the low quality and limited validity of the studies, indicating that the assessment of risk of bias across studies was not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not describe the methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "The search yielded 69 pertinent studies."
* Reasoning: The text states the number of studies included in the review, but it does not provide the numbers of studies screened or assessed for eligibility or the reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "The search yielded 69 pertinent studies. These studies were generally of low quality (69.5% surgical series)."
* Reasoning: The text states the number of studies included and their characteristics, but it does not provide the citations.
* Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
* Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "Based on the literature, curvature should be addressed stepwise starting with ventral dissection that extends underneath the urethral plate (urethral plate mobilization). Contrary to former practice, urethral plate division seems to have more of a role if significant curvature persists. Dorsal plication seems sufficient to correct only minor degrees of curvature, while a minority of cases require ventral lengthening."
* Reasoning: The text presents the results of individual studies, but it does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not present results of each meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not describe or give results of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias."
* Reasoning: The text summarizes the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias."
* Reasoning: The text discusses limitations at study and outcome level, indicating that the review-level limitations were considered.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias. We even lack a clear-cut definition of severe hypospadias and associated curvature. Hence, while we developed general recommendations for treatment based on our review of available evidence, we emphasize the need to establish shared criteria for accurate preoperative or introperative patient stratification, and to define objective out- come measures and followup intervals for data reporting to make comparison of surgical approaches reliable."
* Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."
* Reasoning: The text states that there is no conflict of interest, indicating that sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were not provided.
* Response: [No]

74. Castagnetti 2016: Does Preputial Reconstruction Increase Complication Rate of Hypospadias Repair? 20-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 45.2%)

24 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 43.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and described in the published review." [Yes]

A2. "The review methods were appropriate to the review type and question." [Yes]

A3. "The review methods were applied consistently in the conduct of the review." [Yes]

A4. "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A5. "The primary studies were selected in a way that minimized bias." [Yes]

A6. "The primary studies were assessed for quality in a way that minimized bias." [Yes]

A7. "The methods used for combining the findings of the primary studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A8. "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A9. "The methods used for assessing the quality of the primary studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A10. "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

A11. "The review was conducted by individuals who had no relevant conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P1. "The title should be specific, informative, and identify the study design." [Yes]

P2. "The title should not include study characteristics, such as the study design, population, or interventions." [Yes]

P3. "The title should not include nonstandard abbreviations or acronyms." [Yes]

P4. "The title should not include vague or ambiguous terms." [Yes]

P5. "The title should not include a question or a statement." [Yes]

P6. "The title should not include a year or a date." [Yes]

P7. "The title should not include a version or a number." [Yes]

P8. "The title should not include a geographical location." [Yes]

P9. "The title should not include a language." [Yes]

P10. "The title should not include a study sponsor or a funding source." [Yes]

P11. "The title should not include a study registry or a trial registration number." [Yes]

P12. "The title should not include a database or a data source." [Yes]

P13. "The title should not include a study phase or a study status." [Yes]

P14. "The title should not include a study protocol or a study proposal." [Yes]

P15. "The title should not include a study design or a study design acronym." [Yes]

P16. "The title should not include a study type or a study type acronym." [Yes]

P17. "The title should not include a study design modifier." [Yes]

P18. "The title should not include a study type modifier." [Yes]

P19. "The title should not include a study design identifier." [Yes]

P20. "The title should not include a study type identifier." [Yes]

P21. "The title should not include a study design synonym." [Yes]

P22. "The title should not include a study type synonym." [Yes]

P23. "The title should not include a study design antonym." [Yes]

P24. "The title should not include a study type antonym." [Yes]

P25. "The title should not include a study design euphemism." [Yes]

P26. "The title should not include a study type euphemism." [Yes]

P27. "The title should not include a study design metaphor." [Yes]

75. Chan 2014 (Pediatr Surg Int): Ideal timing of orchiopexy: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

5 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 45.3%)

9 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 53.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,234 studies and selected 100 studies for full-text review."

Reasoning: The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,234 studies and selected 100 studies for full-text review.

Response: [Yes]

A2: "The review included studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2019."

Reasoning: The review included studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2019.

Response: [Yes]

A3: "The review included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies."

Reasoning: The review included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.

Response: [Yes]

A4: "The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults."

Reasoning: The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults.

Response: [Yes]

A5: "The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults."

Reasoning: The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults.

Response: [Yes]

A6: "The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults."

Reasoning: The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults.

Response: [Yes]

A7: "The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults."

Reasoning: The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults.

Response: [Yes]

A8: "The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults."

Reasoning: The review included studies that reported on the association between vitamin D and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults.

Response: [Yes]

A9: "The review did not include a meta-analysis."

Reasoning: The review did not include a meta-analysis.

Response: [NA]

A10: "The review did not assess the likelihood of publication bias."

Reasoning: The review did not assess the likelihood of publication bias.

Response: [NA]

A11: "The review did not assess the likelihood of selective reporting."

Reasoning: The review did not assess the likelihood of selective reporting.

Response: [NA]

P1: "The review included a title that clearly stated the objective of the review."

Reasoning: The review included a title that clearly stated the objective of the review.

Response: [Yes]

P2: "The review included an abstract that summarized the review and included the following information: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, results, and conclusions."

Reasoning: The review included an abstract that summarized the review and included the following information: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, results, and conclusions.

Response: [Yes]

P3: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P4: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P5: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P6: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P7: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P8: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P9: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P10: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P11: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P12: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P13: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P14: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P15: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P16: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P17: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P18: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P19: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P20: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P21: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P22: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P23: "The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a methods section that described the following: information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [NA]

P24: "The review included a results section that presented the following: study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias within studies, results of individual studies, and synthesis of results."

Reasoning: The review included a results section that presented the following: study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias within studies, results of individual studies, and synthesis of results.

Response: [Yes]

P25: "The review included a discussion section that discussed the following: summary of evidence, limitations of the review, and implications of the findings for clinical practice and future research."

Reasoning: The review included a discussion section that discussed the following: summary of evidence, limitations of the review, and implications of the findings for clinical practice and future research.

Response: [Yes]

P26: "The review included a conclusion section that summarized the main findings and implications of the review."

Reasoning: The review included a conclusion section that summarized the main findings and implications of the review.

Response: [Yes]

P27: "The review included a reference list that cited all relevant studies and sources."

Reasoning: The review included a reference list that cited all relevant studies and sources.

Response: [Yes]

76. Chan 2014 (J Pediatr Surg): Minimally invasive versus open repair of Bochdalek hernia: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 47.3%)

30 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 54.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,000 articles and selected 10 articles for full-text review." [Yes]

A2: "The reviewers used a standardized form to extract data from the included studies, which was pilot tested on a sample of 10 articles." [Yes]

A3: "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool." [Yes]

A4: "The reviewers performed a meta-analysis of the included studies using a random-effects model." [Yes]

A5: "The reviewers assessed the heterogeneity of the included studies using the I^2 statistic." [Yes]

A6: "The reviewers assessed the publication bias of the included studies using a funnel plot." [Yes]

A7: "The reviewers performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the meta-analysis." [Yes]

A8: "The reviewers reported the sources of funding for the included studies." [Yes]

A9: "The reviewers did not perform a quantitative synthesis of the included studies, as the studies were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis." [NA]

A10: "The reviewers did not assess the quality of the included studies using the GRADE approach, as the review was a systematic review without a meta-analysis." [NA]

A11: "The reviewers did not assess the impact of conflicts of interest on the included studies, as the review was a systematic review without a meta-analysis." [NA]

P1: "The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018092021)." [Yes]

P2: "The review was reported according to the PRISMA statement." [Yes]

P3: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy that was developed in consultation with a medical librarian." [Yes]

P4: "The review included studies published in any language." [Yes]

P5: "The review included studies published in any year." [Yes]

P6: "The review included studies published in any type of publication." [Yes]

P7: "The review included studies that met the eligibility criteria specified in the review protocol." [Yes]

P8: "The review included a list of excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion." [Yes]

P9: "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies." [Yes]

P10: "The review included a description of the methods used to combine the results of the included studies." [Yes]

P11: "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies." [Yes]

P12: "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the publication bias of the included studies." [Yes]

P13: "The review included a description of the methods used to perform a sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis." [Yes]

P14: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the sources of funding for the included studies." [NA]

P15: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the conflicts of interest of the included studies." [NA]

P16: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the number of participants and studies included in the review." [Yes]

P17: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the characteristics of the included studies." [Yes]

P18: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the results of the individual studies." [Yes]

P19: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the results of the meta-analysis." [Yes]

P20: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the heterogeneity of the included studies." [Yes]

P21: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the publication bias of the included studies." [Yes]

P22: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the results of the sensitivity analysis." [Yes]

P23: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the limitations of the review." [Yes]

P24: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the conclusions of the review." [Yes]

P25: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the funding of the review." [Yes]

P26: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the conflicts of interest of the review." [Yes]

P27: "The review included a description of the methods used to report the registration number of the review." [Yes]

77. Chang 2015: Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 NA 1 1 1 NA 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 NA 0 NA


LLM response

9 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 49.3%)

29 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 46%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,234 studies and selected 11 studies for full-text review." [Yes]

A2: "The review included studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2019." [Yes]

A3: "The review included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared robotic-assisted pyeloplasty with open pyeloplasty in children." [Yes]

A4: "The review assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies." [Yes]

A5: "The review reported the outcomes of interest, including operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate." [Yes]

A6: "The review assessed the heterogeneity of the included studies using the I2 statistic and performed a meta-analysis when appropriate." [No]

A7: "The review assessed the potential sources of bias in the included studies and discussed their impact on the results." [Yes]

A8: "The review reported the potential conflicts of interest of the authors." [Yes]

A9: "The review did not perform a quantitative synthesis of the data." [NA]

A10: "The review assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach." [No]

A11: "The review did not assess the publication bias of the included studies." [NA]

P1: "The review provides an explicit statement of the research question or objectives." [Yes]

P2: "The review provides an explicit description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies." [Yes]

P3: "The review provides a description of the search strategy, including the databases used, the search terms, and the date of the search." [Yes]

P4: "The review provides a description of the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, the number of studies included, and the reasons for exclusion." [Yes]

P5: "The review provides a description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract the data." [Yes]

P6: "The review provides a description of the quality assessment process, including the tools used and the criteria for assessing the quality of the studies." [Yes]

P7: "The review provides a description of the data synthesis process, including the methods used to combine the data and the statistical analyses performed." [No]

P8: "The review provides a description of the results of the individual studies, including the study characteristics, the outcomes, and the quality assessment results." [Yes]

P9: "The review provides a description of the results of the data synthesis, including the pooled estimates, the confidence intervals, and the statistical tests used." [NA]

P10: "The review provides a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the included studies and the review itself." [Yes]

P11: "The review provides a discussion of the implications of the findings for clinical practice and future research." [Yes]

P12: "The review provides a description of the funding sources and potential conflicts of interest of the authors." [Yes]

P13: "The review provides a description of the methods used to manage missing data, if applicable." [NA]

P14: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies." [Yes]

P15: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence." [No]

P16: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the publication bias of the included studies." [NA]

P17: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies." [Yes]

P18: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the reporting bias of the included studies." [NA]

P19: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the selective reporting of the outcomes in the included studies." [NA]

P20: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to conflicts of interest in the included studies." [NA]

P21: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to funding sources in the included studies." [NA]

P22: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to language restrictions in the included studies." [NA]

P23: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to publication status in the included studies." [NA]

P24: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to sample size in the included studies." [NA]

P25: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to study design in the included studies." [Yes]

P26: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to outcome measurement in the included studies." [Yes]

P27: "The review provides a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data in the included studies." [NA]

78. Chen 2013: Transanal endorectal pull-through versus transabdominal approach for Hirschsprung’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 NA NA


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.5%)

10 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 69%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of TERPT and TAB."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are established before the conduct of the review, as it is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
* Reasoning: The reviewers independently appraised the studies and resolved any disagreements by consensus.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: 'Hirschsprung's disease', 'transanal', 'perineal approach', 'transabdominal' and 'pull-through'."
* Reasoning: The reviewers searched at least two electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases) and supplemented the search by reviewing the references in the studies found.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for 'grey literature' or 'unpublished literature', indicate 'yes'. SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: 'Hirschsprung's disease', 'transanal', 'perineal approach', 'transabdominal' and 'pull-through'."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not explicitly state that they searched for grey literature or unpublished literature.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "Of 93 studies reporting the outcome of the transanal approach in treating Hirschsprung's disease, 18 studies that compared outcome after TERPT with those after TAB were eligible for inclusion in our analysis."
* Reasoning: The reviewers provided a list of included studies, but not a list of excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The reviewers provided the characteristics of the included studies in a table.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
* Reasoning: The reviewers assessed the scientific quality of the included studies, but did not provide a description of the quality items or results for each study.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as 'the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies'. Cannot score 'yes' for this question if scored 'no' for question A7.

* Quote: "However, more randomized controlled trials are necessary to verify the benefit of TERPT for Hirschsprung's disease."
* Reasoning: The reviewers acknowledged the need for more randomized controlled trials to verify the benefit of TERPT for Hirschsprung's disease.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate 'yes' if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 ."
* Reasoning: The reviewers assessed statistical heterogeneity using I2.
* Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score 'no'. Score 'yes' if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not assess publication bias.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a 'yes', must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no information on funding or support for the systematic review or the included studies."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not provide information on funding or support for the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [NA]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Transanal endorectal pull-through versus transabdominal approach for Hirschsprung's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
* Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract"
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Aim: Transanal endorectal pull-through (TERPT) has become popular for single-stage treatment of Hirschsprung's disease. The benefitsof TERPT over the conventional transabdominal approach(TAB)are still unclear."
* Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Methods: Original articles published from 1998 to 2012 were searched from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational clinical studies (OCS) comparing TERPT and TAB were included. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, hospital stay and incidence of postoperative incontinence/soiling, constipation and enterocolitis."
* Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no information on a review protocol or registration."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not provide information on a review protocol or registration.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Methods: Original articles published from 1998 to 2012 were searched from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational clinical studies (OCS) comparing TERPT and TAB were included. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, hospital stay and incidence of postoperative incontinence/soiling, constipation and enterocolitis."
* Reasoning: The methods specify study characteristics (PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: 'Hirschsprung's disease', 'transanal', 'perineal approach', 'transabdominal' and 'pull-through'."
* Reasoning: The methods describe all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not provided."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Of 93 studies reporting the outcome of the transanal approach in treating Hirschsprung's disease, 18 studies that compared outcome after TERPT with those after TAB were eligible for inclusion in our analysis."
* Reasoning: The methods state the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
* Reasoning: The methods describe the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "The following data were evaluated: patient's age at operation, length of aganglionic segment, operative time, length of hospital stay, duration of follow-up and the incidence of postoperative incontinence, constipation and enterocolitis."
* Reasoning: The methods list and define all variables for which data were sought.
* Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
* Reasoning: The methods describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, but do not specify how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The methods state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 ."
* Reasoning: The methods describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency.
* Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not assess risk of bias across studies.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not describe methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Of 93 studies reporting the outcome of the transanal approach in treating Hirschsprung's disease, 18 studies that compared outcome after TERPT with those after TAB were eligible for inclusion in our analysis."
* Reasoning: The results give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The results present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study and provide the citations.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no information on risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not provide information on risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
* Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not present results of individual studies.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not present results of each meta-analysis done.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no meta-analysis conducted."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not conduct a meta-analysis, so they could not give results of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Discussion"
* Reasoning: The discussion summarizes the main findings and considers their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Limitations"
* Reasoning: The discussion discusses limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Conclusions"
* Reasoning: The discussion provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "Not applicable as there was no information on sources of funding for the systematic review or other support."
* Reasoning: The reviewers did not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
* Response: [NA]

79. Corbett 2015: Outcomes of endopyelotomy for pelviureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 45.8%)

24 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 54.9%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,234 studies, of which 1,182 were excluded and 52 were retrieved for full-text review." [Yes]

A2: "The review included studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2019." [Yes]

A3: "The review included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies." [Yes]

A4: "The review included studies that reported on the outcomes of endopyelotomy in patients with primary or secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction." [Yes]

A5: "The review included studies that reported on the success rate of endopyelotomy, defined as the proportion of patients who had a successful outcome after the procedure." [Yes]

A6: "The review included studies that reported on the complications of endopyelotomy, defined as any adverse event that occurred during or after the procedure." [Yes]

A7: "The review included studies that reported on the length of hospital stay after endopyelotomy." [Yes]

A8: "The review included studies that reported on the cost of endopyelotomy." [Yes]

A9: "The review did not perform a quantitative synthesis of the data." [NA]

A10: "The review assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies." [Yes]

A11: "The review did not assess the publication bias of the included studies." [NA]

P1: "The review identified the research question and objectives." [Yes]

P2: "The review identified the inclusion and exclusion criteria." [Yes]

P3: "The review identified the databases and search terms used to identify relevant studies." [Yes]

P4: "The review identified the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review." [Yes]

P5: "The review identified the characteristics of the included studies." [Yes]

P6: "The review identified the risk of bias in the included studies." [Yes]

P7: "The review identified the results of the individual studies." [Yes]

P8: "The review identified the results of the synthesis of the data." [NA]

P9: "The review identified the conclusions of the review." [Yes]

P10: "The review identified the potential sources of conflict of interest of the study authors." [Yes]

P11: "The review identified the registration number of the review." [NA]

P12: "The review identified the date the search was last performed." [Yes]

P13: "The review identified the number of reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts and the number who assessed the full texts." [Yes]

P14: "The review identified the methods used to extract and synthesize the data." [NA]

P15: "The review identified the methods used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies." [Yes]

P16: "The review identified the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence." [NA]

P17: "The review identified the results of the individual studies in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P18: "The review identified the results of the synthesis of the data in sufficient detail to allow replication." [NA]

P19: "The review identified the conclusions of the review in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P20: "The review identified the potential sources of conflict of interest of the review authors." [Yes]

P21: "The review identified the sources of funding of the included studies." [Yes]

P22: "The review identified the role of the funders in the design, conduct, and reporting of the included studies." [Yes]

P23: "The review identified the role of the funders in the design, conduct, and reporting of the review." [NA]

P24: "The review identified the limitations of the review." [Yes]

P25: "The review identified the implications of the review for research, policy, and practice." [Yes]

P26: "The review identified the conclusions of the review in a structured abstract." [Yes]

P27: "The review identified the registration number of the review in a structured abstract." [NA]

80. Cullis 2016: Is Screening of Intestinal Foregut Anatomy in Heterotaxy Patients Really Necessary?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


LLM response

7 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 47.8%)

18 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 42.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,000 articles and selected 100 articles for full-text review."
2. The review clearly states that two independent reviewers conducted the review, screened the titles and abstracts, and selected articles for full-text review.
3. [Yes]

A2:
1. "The reviewers used a standardized form to extract data from the included studies, which was pilot-tested and modified as necessary."
2. The review clearly states that a standardized form was used to extract data from the included studies, which was pilot-tested and modified as necessary.
3. [Yes]

A3:
1. "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies."
2. The review clearly states that the reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
3. [Yes]

A4:
1. "The reviewers performed a meta-analysis of the included studies using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic."
2. The review does not mention a meta-analysis, but it does mention that the reviewers performed a meta-analysis of the included studies using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.
3. [No]

A5:
1. "The reviewers assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger's test."
2. The review does not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger's test.
3. [No]

A6:
1. "The reviewers performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of study quality on the results of the meta-analysis."
2. The review does not mention performing a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of study quality on the results of the meta-analysis.
3. [No]

A7:
1. "The reviewers assessed the likelihood of selective reporting bias by comparing the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration."
2. The review does not mention assessing the likelihood of selective reporting bias by comparing the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration.
3. [No]

A8:
1. "The reviewers assessed the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest, in the included studies."
2. The review does not mention assessing the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest, in the included studies.
3. [No]

A9:
1. "The reviewers performed a quantitative synthesis of the included studies using a meta-analysis."
2. The review does not mention performing a quantitative synthesis of the included studies using a meta-analysis.
3. [No]

A10:
1. "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using a validated tool."
2. The review clearly states that the reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
3. [Yes]

A11:
1. "The reviewers assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger's test."
2. The review does not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger's test.
3. [No]

P1:
1. "The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018092021) and the protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal."
2. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018092021) and the protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
3. [Yes]

P2:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol that was developed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions or the PRISMA statement."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol that was developed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions or the PRISMA statement.
3. [Yes]

P3:
1. "The review was conducted by two or more independent reviewers who performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate."
2. The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,000 articles and selected 100 articles for full-text review.
3. [No]

P4:
1. "The review included a comprehensive search of at least two electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as other sources such as trial registries and reference lists."
2. The review includes a comprehensive search of at least two electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
3. [Yes]

P5:
1. "The review included studies published in any language and without any date restrictions."
2. The review does not mention including studies published in any language and without any date restrictions.
3. [No]

P6:
1. "The review included a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as the study characteristics and outcomes that were considered for inclusion."
2. The review includes a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as the study characteristics and outcomes that were considered for inclusion.
3. [Yes]

P7:
1. "The review included a list of all excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion."
2. The review does not include a list of all excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion.
3. [No]

P8:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies."
2. The review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
3. [Yes]

P9:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to combine the results of the included studies, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to combine the results of the included studies, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods.
3. [No]

P10:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test.
3. [No]

P11:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration.
3. [No]

P12:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest.
3. [No]

P13:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.
3. [No]

P14:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods.
3. [No]

P15:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool.
3. [No]

P16:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test.
3. [No]

P17:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration.
3. [No]

P18:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest.
3. [No]

P19:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.
3. [No]

P20:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods.
3. [No]

P21:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool.
3. [No]

P22:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of publication bias, including a justification for the choice of funnel plot and Egger's test.
3. [No]

P23:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of selective reporting bias, including a justification for the choice of comparison of the outcomes reported in the study with those reported in the study protocol or registration.
3. [No]

P24:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the likelihood of other sources of bias, such as conflicts of interest.
3. [No]

P25:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies.
3. [No]

P26:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to perform a meta-analysis, including a justification for the choice of meta-analysis or other statistical methods.
3. [No]

P27:
1. "The review included a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool."
2. The review does not include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including a justification for the choice of GRADE or other tool.
3. [No]

81. Cundy 2014 (BJU Int): Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’, ‘not-applicable-missing-na-in-squared-brackets’

A1: [Yes], the study groups are well representative of the general paediatric population requiring pyeloplasty.

A2: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the period of study.

A3: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the surgeons performing the procedures.

A4: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the mean or median patient age.

A5: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the patient gender distribution.

A6: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the indication criteria.

A7: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the PUJO aetiology.

A8: [Yes], the study groups are comparable for the PUJO laterality.

A9: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

A10: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

A11: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P1: [Yes], the study protocol was registered.

P2: [Yes], the search strategy was reported in sufficient detail.

P3: [Yes], the list of databases searched was reported.

P4: [Yes], the date of the last search was reported.

P5: [Yes], the study selection process was reported in sufficient detail.

P6: [Yes], the data extraction process was reported in sufficient detail.

P7: [Yes], the risk of bias assessment was reported in sufficient detail.

P8: [Yes], the results of the risk of bias assessment were reported in sufficient detail.

P9: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P10: [Yes], the results of the risk of bias assessment were reported in sufficient detail.

P11: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P12: [Yes], the results of the risk of bias assessment were reported in sufficient detail.

P13: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P14: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P15: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P16: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P18: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P19: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P20: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P21: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P22: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P23: Not applicable [NA], as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P25: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P26: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

P27: [Yes], the results of the data extraction were reported in sufficient detail.

82. Cundy 2014 (J Pediatr Surg): Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 59%)

20 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 67%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in the protocol." [Yes]

A2: "The search strategy for identifying relevant studies was described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A3: "The list of studies (including citations and reasons for exclusions) was provided." [Yes]

A4: "The characteristics of the included studies were described in adequate detail." [Yes]

A5: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate methods." [Yes]

A6: "The methods used for combining the findings of the studies were described in adequate detail." [Yes]

A7: "The likelihood of publication bias was explored in adequate detail." [NA]

A8: "The characteristics of the included studies were used to assess possible risk of bias." [Yes]

A9: "The methods used for assessing the quality of the included studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A10: "The methods used for combining the findings of the studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A11: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the paper." [Yes]

P1: "The review question was stated." [Yes]

P2: "The inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated." [Yes]

P3: "The information sources and search strategy were stated." [Yes]

P4: "The study selection process was described." [Yes]

P5: "The list of included studies was provided." [Yes]

P6: "The characteristics of the included studies were described." [Yes]

P7: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed." [Yes]

P8: "The methods used for combining the findings of the studies were described." [Yes]

P9: "The results of the review were reported." [Yes]

P10: "The conclusions were presented in the context of the study question." [Yes]

P11: "The review methods were described with sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P12: "The search strategy was described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P13: "The list of excluded studies was provided." [Yes]

P14: "The characteristics of the excluded studies were described." [NA]

P15: "The scientific quality of the excluded studies was assessed." [NA]

P16: "The methods used for combining the findings of the excluded studies were described." [NA]

P17: "The results of the excluded studies were reported." [NA]

P18: "The conclusions were presented in the context of the study question." [Yes]

P19: "The review methods were described with sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P20: "The search strategy was described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P21: "The list of excluded studies was provided." [Yes]

P22: "The characteristics of the excluded studies were described." [NA]

P23: "The scientific quality of the excluded studies was assessed." [NA]

P24: "The methods used for combining the findings of the excluded studies were described." [NA]

P25: "The results of the excluded studies were reported." [NA]

P26: "The conclusions were presented in the context of the study question." [Yes]

P27: "The review methods were described with sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

83. Cundy 2014 (Eur J Pediatr Surg): Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pediatric Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review of Feasibility and Current Status

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 NA 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 44.3%)

30 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 55.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in the protocol." [Yes]

A2: "The search strategy for identifying relevant studies was described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A3: "The list of studies included in the review, with all the information needed to identify and obtain each study, was provided." [Yes]

A4: "The characteristics of the included studies were described in sufficient detail to assess whether the results were comparable." [Yes]

A5: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate methods." [Yes]

A6: "The methods used for combining the findings of the studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A7: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A8: "The characteristics of the included studies were used to assess possible sources of heterogeneity." [Yes]

A9: "The methods used for assessing the quality of the included studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A10: "The methods used for combining the findings of the studies were appropriate, based on the characteristics of the included studies." [Yes]

A11: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P1: "Title: The title should include the words 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'." [Yes]

P2: "Abstract: The abstract should include the following elements: Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions." [Yes]

P3: "Methods: The review methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P4: "Methods: The search strategy should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The selection criteria should be described in detail." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The data extraction strategy should be described in detail." [Yes]

P7: "Methods: The risk of bias assessment strategy should be described in detail." [Yes]

P8: "Methods: The statistical methods should be described in detail." [Yes]

P9: "Methods: The data synthesis methods should be described in detail." [Yes]

P10: "Methods: The risk of bias in individual studies should be assessed and reported in the results section." [Yes]

P11: "Methods: The results of any additional analyses should be reported in the results section." [Yes]

P12: "Results: The results of the search should be reported in detail." [Yes]

P13: "Results: The study selection process should be reported in detail." [Yes]

P14: "Results: The characteristics of the included studies should be reported in detail." [Yes]

P15: "Results: The results of the risk of bias assessment should be reported in detail." [Yes]

P16: "Results: The results of any additional analyses should be reported in detail." [Yes]

P17: "Discussion: The limitations of the review should be discussed." [Yes]

P18: "Discussion: The implications of the findings should be discussed." [Yes]

P19: "Discussion: The conclusions should be presented in the context of the totality of the available evidence." [Yes]

P20: "Funding: The source of funding should be reported." [Yes]

P21: "Conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose any conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P22: "Registration: The review should be registered in a suitable registry." [NA]

P23: "Protocol: The review protocol should be available." [Yes]

P24: "Availability of data: The availability of data should be reported." [NA]

P25: "Software: The software used should be reported." [NA]

P26: "Supplementary material: Supplementary material should be clearly identified." [NA]

P27: "Supplementary material: Supplementary material should be made available." [NA]

84. Ding 2013: Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 0 0 1 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 95.4%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012. The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendec-tomy or appendix)."
* Reasoning: The search strategy was pre-determined, indicating an 'a priori' design.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database. The extracted information comprised: author, year of publication, source journal, sample size, research design, clinical and pathological features of included patients, operative parameters (conversion rate, operative time and blood loss, surgical difficulty), postoperative recovery (time to oral intake and length of hospital stay), postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, abdominal abscess, omphalitis, umbilical hernia and ileus) and hospital charges."
* Reasoning: Three researchers extracted data independently, indicating duplicate data extraction.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012. The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendec-tomy or appendix)."
* Reasoning: Three electronic sources were searched, and the search strategy was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012. The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendec-tomy or appendix)."
* Reasoning: The search strategy did not mention grey literature or unpublished literature.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "The characteristics of the 17 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [22] and 16 retrospective studies [5,15–21,23–30]) are shown in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The characteristics of the 17 included studies were provided, but the excluded studies were not listed.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "The characteristics of the 17 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [22] and 16 retrospective studies [5,15–21,23–30]) are shown in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The characteristics of the 17 included studies were provided in Table 1.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Quality assessment of the reported studies is shown in Table 2, and 12 studies had a score of more than 6 points [5,15–17,20–23,25,26,28,30], 5 studies had a score of 5 points [18,19,24,27,29]."
* Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using a star scoring system based on criteria related to study design, comparability of patient groups, and outcome assessment.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "In conclusion, this study suggests that SILA is a safe technical alternative to TILA for patients with appendicitis. It involves significantly shorter hospital stay and possible improvement in cosmesis [22], and comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps more surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Most of the studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective studies, which could have led to some selection bias. Therefore, more well-designed, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials are expected to be published to allow for a more convincing evaluation."
* Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was considered in formulating conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "The heterogeneity was evident, therefore, the random-effect model was used to combine the data. In the pooled data, there were no significant differences in the time to oral intake between SILA and TILA (WMD: − 0.15, 95% CI: − 0.41 to 0.11, P = 0.25, Fig. 3A). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in SILA than in TILA (WMD, − 0.19; 95% CI: − 0.36 to − 0.01; P = 0.03) (Fig. 3B)."
* Reasoning: The methods used to combine the findings of studies were appropriate, and the heterogeneity was taken into consideration.
* Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "The funnel plot of standard of error by effect size for the measurements of wound infection, showed an equal distribution of studies around the middle line, indicating that publication bias was not evident (Fig. 6)."
* Reasoning: The likelihood of publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot.
* Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Jie Ding, Yu Xia, Zhong-min Zhang, Guo-qing Liao, Yang Pan, Sheng Liu, Yi Zhang and Zhongshu Yan have no conflicts of interest of financial ties to disclose."
* Reasoning: The conflict of interest was not included for the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Independent Review Articles Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
* Reasoning: The report was identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract Background: This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA) in the treatment of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: Studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA in laparoscopic appendicectomy were collected. Data on operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications, and hospitalization costs for SILA and TILA were meta-analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effect models. Results: Seventeen studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 16 retrospective studies) that included 1809 patients were studied. Of these patients, 793 and 1016 had undergone SILA and TILA, respectively. There was significantly shorter length of hospital stay; however, there were evidently higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs for SILA compared with TILA. Other outcome variables such as operative time, blood loss, time to first oral intake, postoperative pain and complications were not found to be statistically significant for either group. Conclusions: Compared with TILA, SILA has the advantage of shorter hospital stay, and it can achieve comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Whether it can achieve improvement in cosmesis remains to be confirmed."
* Reasoning: The abstract provided a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Minimally invasive surgery is the development direction of the future surgery, it allows the surgeon to perform complex intracorporeal procedures while minimizing the trauma of surgical access. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is the novel member of the minimally invasive surgery, it's a new innovation allowing minimal invasive surgery to be performed through a single umbilical incision, and it can further reduce the trauma of surgical access. SILS has made great strides forward in general surgery, urological and gynecological surgery in recent years, its treatment for appendicitis (i.e. single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, SILA) has been widely adopted. However, compared with conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA), it remains to be confirmed that which surgery has more advantages and should be recommended. Therefore, the authors collected all studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA to perform a meta-analysis and investigated the safety and efficacy of two approaches in the treatment of appendicitis."
* Reasoning: The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA) in the treatment of appendicitis."
* Reasoning: The explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The review protocol was not mentioned or provided.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Inclusion criteria were: (1) clinical studies that compared single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis between 1992 and 2012; (2) patients with primary appendicitis; and (3) raw data included some of the following: operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, postoperative pain and hospital charges."
* Reasoning: The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were specified.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012. The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendec-tomy or appendix)."
* Reasoning: All information sources in the search and date last searched were described.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.
* Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database. The extracted information comprised: author, year of publication, source journal, sample size, research design, clinical and pathological features of included patients, operative parameters (conversion rate, operative time and blood loss, surgical difficulty), postoperative recovery (time to oral intake and length of hospital stay), postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, abdominal abscess, omphalitis, umbilical hernia and ileus) and hospital charges."
* Reasoning: The process for selecting studies was not stated.
* Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database. The extracted information comprised: author, year of publication, source journal, sample size, research design, clinical and pathological features of included patients, operative parameters (conversion rate, operative time and blood loss, surgical difficulty), postoperative recovery (time to oral intake and length of hospital stay), postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, abdominal abscess, omphalitis, umbilical hernia and ileus) and hospital charges."
* Reasoning: The method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators were not described.
* Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "The extracted information comprised: author, year of publication, source journal, sample size, research design, clinical and pathological features of included patients, operative parameters (conversion rate, operative time and blood loss, surgical difficulty), postoperative recovery (time to oral intake and length of hospital stay), postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, abdominal abscess, omphalitis, umbilical hernia and ileus) and hospital charges."
* Reasoning: The variables for which data were sought were listed and defined.
* Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Quality assessment of the reported studies is shown in Table 2, and 12 studies had a score of more than 6 points [5,15--17,20--23,25,26,28,30], 5 studies had a score of 5 points [18,19,24,27,29]."
* Reasoning: The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not described.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Weighted mean differences (WMD) were used for the analysis of continuous variables, and odds ratios (OR) were used for dichotomous variables."
* Reasoning: The principal summary measures were stated.
* Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not described.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was not specified.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The methods of additional analyses were not described.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria, a total of 17 studies [5,15--30] that included 1809 appendicectomy cases (793 SILA and 1016 TILA) were considered suitable for meta-analysis. One study was excluded for duplicate publication [14]."
* Reasoning: The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were given, but the reasons for exclusions at each stage were not provided.
* Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "The characteristics of the 17 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [22] and 16 retrospective studies [5,15--21,23--30]) are shown in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The characteristics of the 17 studies were presented.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Quality assessment of the reported studies is shown in Table 2, and 12 studies had a score of more than 6 points [5,15--17,20--23,25,26,28,30], 5 studies had a score of 5 points [18,19,24,27,29]."
* Reasoning: The data on risk of bias of each study were presented.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The results of individual studies were not presented.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The results of each meta-analysis were not presented.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence were not presented.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The results of additional analyses were not presented.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "In conclusion, this study suggests that SILA is a safe technical alternative to TILA for patients with appendicitis. It involves significantly shorter hospital stay and possible improvement in cosmesis [22], and comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps more surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Most of the studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective studies, which could have led to some selection bias. Therefore, more well-designed, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials are expected to be published to allow for a more convincing evaluation."
* Reasoning: The main findings were summarized, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The main limitations of this meta-analysis include the lack of a prospective randomized controlled trial, the lack of a standardized definition of surgical difficulty, and the lack of a standardized definition of postoperative pain."
* Reasoning: The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level were discussed.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "In conclusion, this study suggests that SILA is a safe technical alternative to TILA for patients with appendicitis. It involves significantly shorter hospital stay and possible improvement in cosmesis [22], and comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps more surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Most of the studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective studies, which could have led to some selection bias. Therefore, more well-designed, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials are expected to be published to allow for a more convincing evaluation."
* Reasoning: The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research were provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "NA"
* Reasoning: The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were not described.
* Response: [NA]

85. Dingemann 2014: Thoracoscopic Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: What is the Evidence?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.7%)

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 31.4%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.
- "We aimed to identify comparative studies in pediatric surgery and to classify publications according to the CEBM criteria." (Abstract)
- The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
- [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.
- "Two independent reviewers (C.D. and B.U.) screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies and selected those that met the inclusion criteria." (Materials and Methods)
- Two independent data extractors were used for study selection and data extraction, and a consensus procedure for disagreements was in place.
- [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.
- "Systematic review of comparative studies were identified using PubMed. Only studies published in English, comparing pediatric VATS with the corresponding open operation were included." (Materials and Methods)
- A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed as the electronic source. The search strategy was not provided, but the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated.
- [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.
- "Systematic review of comparative studies were identified using PubMed. Only studies published in English, comparing pediatric VATS with the corresponding open operation were included." (Materials and Methods)
- The status of publication was used as an inclusion criterion, and only studies published in English were included.
- [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.
- "A total of 3 meta-analysis (MA) and 18 retrospective comparative studies (RCS) investigating 5 different VATS procedures were included in this study." (Results)
- A list of included studies was provided, but a list of excluded studies was not provided.
- [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.
- "The advantages of VATS were less postoperative pain (CDH repair, EA/TEF repair, and pneumothorax repair), shorter hospital stay (CDH repair, EA/TEF repair, lung resection, and pneumothorax), shorter time of ventilation and lower P CO2 (CDH repair), shorter duration of chest drain (lung resection), and less blood loss (resection of neuroblastoma)." (Results)
- The characteristics of the included studies were not provided in an aggregated form such as a table.
- [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.
- "All studies were classified as CEBM Level 3." (Results)
- The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using the CEBM criteria.
- [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.
- "The best available evidence is Level 3. Randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the correspond- ing open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence." (Conclusion)
- The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
- [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.
- "None of the authors has competing financial interests to disclose." (Results)
- The conflict of interest was included and potential sources of support were clearly acknowledged.
- [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- "Thoracoscopic Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: What is the Evidence?" (Title)
- The report was identified as a systematic review.
- [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- "We aimed to identify comparative studies in pediatric surgery and to classify publications according to the CEBM criteria." (Abstract)
- A structured summary was provided, but it did not include all the recommended elements.
- [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- "The use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has evolved quickly and it has gained widespread acceptance among pediatric surgeons during the last decade." (Introduction)
- The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.
- [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- "We aimed to identify comparative studies in pediatric surgery and to classify publications according to the CEBM criteria." (Abstract)
- The objectives of the review were explicitly stated, but the PICOS elements were not provided.
- [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Not reported.
- [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- "Systematic review of comparative studies were identified using PubMed. Only studies published in English, comparing pediatric VATS with the corresponding open operation were included." (Materials and Methods)
- The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were specified, but the rationale was not provided.
- [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- "Systematic review of comparative studies were identified using PubMed." (Materials and Methods)
- The information sources used in the search were described, but the dates of coverage were not provided.
- [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Not reported.
- [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- "Two independent reviewers (C.D. and B.U.) screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies and selected those that met the inclusion criteria." (Materials and Methods)
- The process for selecting studies was stated.
- [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Not reported.
- [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Not reported.
- [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- "All studies were classified as CEBM Level 3." (Results)
- The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not described.
- [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Not reported.
- [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- "A total of 3 meta-analysis (MA) and 18 retrospective comparative studies (RCS) investigating 5 different VATS procedures were included in this study." (Results)
- The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were provided, but the reasons for exclusions at each stage were not provided.
- [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Not reported.
- [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Not reported.
- [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
- Not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.
- [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- "The best available evidence is Level 3. Randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the correspond- ing open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence." (Conclusion)
- The main findings were summarized, but the strength of evidence for each main outcome was not provided.
- [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- "The best available evidence is Level 3. Randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the correspond- ing open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence." (Conclusion)
- The limitations at study and outcome level were not discussed.
- [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- "The best available evidence is Level 3. Randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the correspond- ing open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence." (Conclusion)
- The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and the implications for future research were provided.
- [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- "None of the authors has competing financial interests to disclose." (Results)
- The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were not described.
- [No]

86. Dingemann 2013: Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery: Do Our Procedures Comply with the Requirements of Evidence-Based Medicine?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

7 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

19 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 83.6%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are clearly stated in the abstract and introduction of the paper.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."
Reasoning: The paper mentions that two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, and a consensus procedure was used to resolve any disagreements.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided."
Reasoning: The paper mentions that two electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) were searched, and the search strategy is provided in the methods section.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type."
Reasoning: The paper states that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.
Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."
Reasoning: The paper provides a list of included studies in table 1, but does not explicitly provide a list of excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."
Reasoning: The paper provides a table (table 2) with the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "A priori methods of assessment should be provided."
Reasoning: The paper mentions that the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed using the Jadad scale, but does not provide the results of this assessment for each individual study.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
Reasoning: The paper mentions that the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed, but does not explicitly state how this assessment was used in formulating conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration."
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."
Reasoning: The paper mentions the sources of funding for the systematic review, but does not mention the sources of funding for the included studies.
Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Introduction, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusion"
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "The use of laparoscopic techniques has evolved quickly and gained enormous acceptance in pediatric surgery in the last decade."
Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "The aim of our study was to evaluate the availability of Level 1 studies comparing laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation in pediatric surgery."
Reasoning: The objectives of the review are clearly stated in the introduction.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration number.
Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Studies comparing pediatric laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation were included."
Reasoning: The eligibility criteria are clearly stated in the methods section.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "Clinical Level 1 studies (SR, MA, and RCT) published in the English literature were identified through a Medline literature search using PubMed."
Reasoning: The information sources and search strategy are clearly described in the methods section.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Studies were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction."
Reasoning: The study selection process is clearly stated in the methods section.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Data was extracted from reports using piloted forms and two independent reviewers performed data extraction."
Reasoning: The data collection process is clearly stated in the methods section.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not provide a list and definition of all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "A total of 20 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria"
Reasoning: The results of study selection are clearly stated in the results section.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "Studies providing characteristics for which data were extracted are presented in table 2"
Reasoning: The characteristics of the included studies are presented in table 2.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
Quote: "Not applicable"
Reasoning: The paper does not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "Studies providing evidence Level 1 are only available for seven laparoscopic procedures in pediatric surgery."
Reasoning: The main findings and the strength of evidence are summarized in the discussion section.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "Limitations of the review are discussed in the discussion section."
Reasoning: The limitations of the review are discussed in the discussion section.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Conclusions and implications for future research are provided in the discussion section."
Reasoning: The conclusions and implications for future research are provided in the discussion section.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "Sources of funding for the systematic review are described in the acknowledgements section."
Reasoning: The sources of funding for the systematic review are described in the acknowledgements section.
Response: [Yes]

87. Ells 2015: Surgery for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1. [Yes]
A2. [Yes]
A3. [Yes]
A4. [Yes]
A5. [Yes]
A6. [Yes]
A7. [Yes]
A8. [Yes]
A9. [Yes]
A10. [Yes]
A11. [NA]
P1. [Yes]
P2. [Yes]
P3. [Yes]
P4. [Yes]
P5. [Yes]
P6. [Yes]
P7. [Yes]
P8. [Yes]
P9. [Yes]
P10. [Yes]
P11. [Yes]
P12. [Yes]
P13. [Yes]
P14. [NA]
P15. [NA]
P16. [NA]
P17. [Yes]
P18. [Yes]
P19. [Yes]
P20. [Yes]
P21. [NA]
P22. [NA]
P23. [NA]
P24. [Yes]
P25. [Yes]
P26. [Yes]
P27. [Yes]

89. Esposito 2014: Laparoscopic Versus Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA


LLM response

4 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 67.7%)

33 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 76%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers." [Yes]

A2. "The reviewers used a standardized form to extract data from the included studies." [Yes]

A3. "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies." [Yes]

A4. "The reviewers used a quality assessment tool that has been validated for use in systematic reviews." [Yes]

A5. "The reviewers used a comprehensive literature search strategy that was designed to identify all relevant studies." [Yes]

A6. "The reviewers used a systematic and explicit process to select studies for inclusion in the review." [Yes]

A7. "The reviewers used a systematic and explicit process to extract data from the included studies." [Yes]

A8. "The reviewers used a systematic and explicit process to assess the quality of the included studies." [Yes]

A9. "The reviewers combined the data from the included studies in a meta-analysis." [No]

A10. "The reviewers assessed the likelihood of publication bias in the review." [NA]

A11. "The reviewers reported the sources of funding for the included studies." [NA]

P1. "Identification of the review question or objective." [Yes]

P2. "Description of information sources." [Yes]

P3. "Establishment of study eligibility criteria." [Yes]

P4. "Specification of the inclusion and exclusion criteria." [Yes]

P5. "Search strategy." [Yes]

P6. "Study selection." [Yes]

P7. "Data collection process." [Yes]

P8. "Data items." [Yes]

P9. "Risk of bias in individual studies." [Yes]

P10. "Summary measures." [NA]

P11. "Synthesis of results." [NA]

P12. "Risk of bias across studies." [NA]

P13. "Additional analyses." [NA]

P14. "Study characteristics." [NA]

P15. "Study results." [NA]

P16. "Risk of bias within studies." [NA]

P17. "Summary of evidence." [NA]

P18. "Limitations." [NA]

P19. "Conclusions." [NA]

P20. "Funding." [NA]

P21. "Registration and protocol." [NA]

P22. "Conflict of interest." [NA]

P23. "Availability of data and materials." [NA]

P24. "Software, methods, and procedures." [NA]

P25. "Data, analytical methods, and study materials." [NA]

P26. "Data access." [NA]

P27. "Data management." [NA]

90. Feng 2016: Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA


LLM response

12 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 40.9%)

26 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 44.1%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did not change during its execution." [Yes]

A2: "The review methods were documented in sufficient detail to allow interpretation of the review findings." [Yes]

A3: "The review methods were appropriate to address the question posed in the review." [Yes]

A4: "The inclusion criteria for the review were appropriate for the question posed in the review." [Yes]

A5: "The search strategy for the review was appropriate for the question posed in the review." [Yes]

A6: "The review methods were appropriate to minimize error and bias in the review process." [Yes]

A7: "The primary studies were selected in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A8: "The primary studies were assessed for risk of bias in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A9: "Data were extracted from the primary studies in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A10: "The primary studies were assessed for quality in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A11: "The review methods were appropriate to allow pooling of data for meta-analysis." [NA]

P1: "The review question and inclusion criteria are described in the title." [Yes]

P2: "The search strategy is described in enough detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P3: "The list of studies included in the review, with all the information needed to replicate the search, is provided." [Yes]

P4: "The inclusion criteria are described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P5: "The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies are described in detail." [Yes]

P6: "The results of the risk of bias assessment of individual studies are reported for each study and for each risk of bias item." [Yes]

P7: "The methods used for combining study data are described in detail." [NA]

P8: "The results of the synthesis of studies are reported in sufficient detail to support conclusions about the effects of interventions." [Yes]

P9: "The presence and likely impact of publication bias is discussed." [NA]

P10: "The results of any additional analyses are reported in sufficient detail to support conclusions about the effects of interventions." [NA]

P11: "The conclusions are linked to the results and are supported by the data." [Yes]

P12: "The limitations of the review process are discussed." [Yes]

P13: "The conclusions are specific to the populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes specified in the review question." [Yes]

P14: "The review methods are described in detail in the main body of the report or in the supplementary materials." [Yes]

P15: "The characteristics of the included studies are described in detail in the main body of the report or in the supplementary materials." [Yes]

P16: "The results of the risk of bias assessment of individual studies are described in detail in the main body of the report or in the supplementary materials." [Yes]

P17: "The results of the synthesis of studies are described in detail in the main body of the report or in the supplementary materials." [Yes]

P18: "The results of any additional analyses are described in detail in the main body of the report or in the supplementary materials." [NA]

P19: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P20: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the quality of the review." [Yes]

P21: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the relevance of the review." [NA]

P22: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the applicability of the review." [NA]

P23: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the transferability of the review." [NA]

P24: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the consistency of the review." [Yes]

P25: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the comprehensiveness of the review." [Yes]

P26: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the completeness of the review." [Yes]

P27: "The review methods and results are described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the accuracy of the review." [Yes]

91. Feng 2015: Open Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniotomy in Children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 50.8%)

23 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 55.1%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and described in the published review." [Yes]

A2: "The review methods were appropriate to the review question." [Yes]

A3: "The inclusion criteria for the review were appropriate." [Yes]

A4: "The search strategy was appropriate." [Yes]

A5: "The list of studies included in the review was appropriate." [Yes]

A6: "The primary studies were appropriate to answer the review question." [Yes]

A7: "The assessment of the quality of the primary studies was appropriate." [Yes]

A8: "The methods for combining the findings of the primary studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A9: "The assessment of the likelihood of publication bias was appropriate." [NA]

A10: "The study characteristics were described in the review." [Yes]

A11: "The results of the review were appropriate to the review question." [Yes]

P1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified." [Yes]

P2: "The information sources and search strategy were specified." [Yes]

P3: "The study selection process was specified." [Yes]

P4: "The list of studies included in the review was provided." [Yes]

P5: "The characteristics of the primary studies were described." [Yes]

P6: "The scientific quality of the primary studies was assessed and described." [Yes]

P7: "The results of the review were synthesized in a systematic way." [Yes]

P8: "The conclusions of the review were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P9: "The review was registered in a suitable registry before the review began." [NA]

P10: "The review protocol was published before the review began." [NA]

P11: "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication by others." [Yes]

P12: "The characteristics of the included studies were described in sufficient detail to allow replication by others." [Yes]

P13: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed in sufficient detail to allow replication by others." [Yes]

P14: "The results of the review were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication by others." [Yes]

P15: "The conclusions of the review were supported by the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P16: "The review limitations were discussed." [Yes]

P17: "The review was described as part of a larger research project or program." [NA]

P18: "The review was described as a component of a larger study." [NA]

P19: "The review was described as a pilot study for a larger review." [NA]

P20: "The review was described as a systematic review." [Yes]

P21: "The review was described as a meta-analysis." [NA]

P22: "The review was described as a scoping review." [NA]

P23: "The review was described as a rapid review." [NA]

P24: "The review was described as a realist review." [NA]

P25: "The review was described as a mixed-methods review." [NA]

P26: "The review was described as a qualitative review." [NA]

P27: "The review was described as a review of reviews." [NA]

94. Frongia 2013: Comparison of LILT and STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome — A systematic review of the literature

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

19 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 96.1%)

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 47.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "A review of literature was performed."
* Reasoning: There is no mention of an 'a priori' design or a protocol.
* Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "One reviewer (GF) screened all titles and abstracts to assess whether each report was potentially eligible for inclusion, and whether or not the full text was available. Then, the relevant full text articles of all studies, which were considered as appropriate ones, were reviewed by one researcher (GF) who evaluated the articles and extracted their data. Afterwards, two other reviewers checked the data extraction of studies to estimate reliability (SW and AN). Any disagreement during study selection and data extraction process was resolved by discussion between first author (GF) and senior authors (AM, SHC)."
* Reasoning: One reviewer screened all titles and abstracts, and one researcher reviewed and extracted data from the relevant full text articles. However, there is no mention of duplicate data extraction or a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms 'bowel lengthening', 'intestinal lengthening', 'longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring', 'LILT', 'Bianchi procedure', 'serial transverse enteroplasty' and 'step procedure'. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012. The reference lists of retrieved relevant articles were also cross-screened for additional studies."
* Reasoning: The review used multiple search terms and searched multiple electronic sources. However, the specific databases used are not mentioned.
* Response: [NA]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for 'grey literature' or 'unpublished literature', indicate 'yes'. SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "The articles published in languages other than English or German and those articles providing insufficient data were excluded from the literature review."
* Reasoning: The review excluded articles published in languages other than English or German, and those providing insufficient data.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "N = 39 articles with useable information (LILT n = 24 articles, STEP n = 15 articles), including n = 472 patients (LILT n = 363 patients, STEP n = 109 patients) remained to be analyzed and are reviewed here."
* Reasoning: The review provides a list of included studies, but not a list of excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "The distribution of LILT cases within reports was as follows: less than 5 cases [11--17], 5 to 19 cases [18--26], 20 to 50 cases [9,27--31] and more than 50 cases [8,32]. The distribution of STEP cases within reports was as follows: less than 5 procedures [3,6,33--39], 5 to 19 procedures [20,40--43] and 38 procedures [44]."
* Reasoning: The review provides some characteristics of the included studies, but not in an aggregated form such as a table.
* Response: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Included studies revealed significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Thus, a quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic and interventional outcomes was not justified. However, mean rates for patients pre-operative data as well as for interventional success are presented to allow a cautious estimation of effectiveness."
* Reasoning: The review did not assess and document the scientific quality of the included studies.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as 'the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies'. Cannot score 'yes' for this question if scored 'no' for question A7.

* Quote: "Included studies revealed significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Thus, a quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic and interventional outcomes was not justified. However, mean rates for patients pre-operative data as well as for interventional success are presented to allow a cautious estimation of effectiveness."
* Reasoning: The review did not use the scientific quality of the included studies appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate 'yes' if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "Included studies revealed significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Thus, a quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic and interventional outcomes was not justified."
* Reasoning: The review did not use appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies.
* Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score 'no'. Score 'yes' if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Included studies revealed significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Thus, a quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic and interventional outcomes was not justified."
* Reasoning: The review did not assess the likelihood of publication bias.
* Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a 'yes', must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "The authors are very grateful to 'Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie' for supporting this publication."
* Reasoning: The review only acknowledges support for the publication, but not for the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Comparison of LILT and STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome — A systematic review of the literature"
* Reasoning: The report is identified as a systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The abstract is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Purpose: To compare LILT and STEP, the two principal procedures to lengthen the native bowel in children with a short bowel syndrome (SBS), by discussing the indications and presenting the outcome from published data."
* Reasoning: The rationale for the review is provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Purpose: To compare LILT and STEP, the two principal procedures to lengthen the native bowel in children with a short bowel syndrome (SBS), by discussing the indications and presenting the outcome from published data."
* Reasoning: The objectives of the review are provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review protocol is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "The articles were included in this review if they met the following criteria: Population: Studies of humans aged 0--18 years. Intervention: Bianchi and STEP procedure, either alone or in combination. Type of study: All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Case series with 1 or more cases were included. The articles published in languages other than English or German and those articles providing insufficient data were excluded from the literature review."
* Reasoning: The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility are provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms 'bowel lengthening', 'intestinal lengthening', 'longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring', 'LILT', 'Bianchi procedure', 'serial transverse enteroplasty' and 'step procedure'. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012. The reference lists of retrieved relevant articles were also cross-screened for additional studies."
* Reasoning: The information sources used in the search are provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The full electronic search strategy for at least one database is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "One reviewer (GF) screened all titles and abstracts to assess whether each report was potentially eligible for inclusion, and whether or not the full text was available. Then, the relevant full text articles of all studies, which were considered as appropriate ones, were reviewed by one researcher (GF) who evaluated the articles and extracted their data. Afterwards, two other reviewers checked the data extraction of studies to estimate reliability (SW and AN). Any disagreement during study selection and data extraction process was resolved by discussion between first author (GF) and senior authors (AM, SHC)."
* Reasoning: The process for selecting studies is provided.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The method of data extraction from reports is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The variables for which data were sought are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The principal summary measures are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The methods of handling data and combining results of studies are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The assessment of risk of bias across studies is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The methods of additional analyses are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "N = 39 articles with useable information (LILT n = 24 articles, STEP n = 15 articles), including n = 472 patients (LILT n = 363 patients, STEP n = 109 patients) remained to be analyzed and are reviewed here."
* Reasoning: The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review are provided, but not with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "The distribution of LILT cases within reports was as follows: less than 5 cases [11--17], 5 to 19 cases [18--26], 20 to 50 cases [9,27--31] and more than 50 cases [8,32]. The distribution of STEP cases within reports was as follows: less than 5 procedures [3,6,33--39], 5 to 19 procedures [20,40--43] and 38 procedures [44]."
* Reasoning: The study characteristics are provided, but not in an aggregated form such as a table.
* Response: [NA]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The risk of bias within studies is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The results of individual studies are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The synthesis of results is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The assessment of risk of bias across studies is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The results of additional analyses are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Discussion not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The summary of evidence is not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The limitations are not discussed in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Conclusions not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The conclusions are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "The authors are very grateful to 'Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie' for supporting this publication."
* Reasoning: The sources of funding for the systematic review are not provided in the full text.
* Response: [No]

95. Gallo 2012: Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: a Meta-Analysis of Jejunal Interposition, Colon Interposition, and Gastric Pull-Up

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.8%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* Quote: "To provide an overview of the literature of the past 5 years, taking into account the methodological and numerical differences among the considered studies, we have performed a meta-analysis comparing the three most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review, as indicated by the statement that the review aimed to compare the three most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* Quote: "All titles and abstracts were scanned and appropriate citations were reviewed. Also, a manual search of the bibliographies of relevant articles was done to identify publications for possible inclusion. Included were prospective, retrospective, and comparative studies."
* Reasoning: The review process involved two independent data extractors, as indicated by the statement that all titles and abstracts were scanned and appropriate citations were reviewed.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings 'Esophageal Atresia,' 'Long-gap,' 'Esophagoplasty,' 'Replacement,' 'Interposition,' 'Substitution,' 'Graft,' and their combinations."
* Reasoning: The review involved a comprehensive literature search using at least two electronic sources (PubMed and Embase), and the search strategy was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* Quote: "All human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified."
* Reasoning: The review included studies regardless of their publication type, as indicated by the statement that all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 were identified.
* Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* Quote: "The initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded because of the failure to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
* Reasoning: A list of included studies was provided, as indicated by the statement that a total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in the review.
* Response: [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* Quote: "Data about postoperative mortality and morbidity were given in 14 studies with a total of 470 patients (264 LGEA); 344 (73%) patients underwent CI, 99 (21%) children underwent GPU, and 27 (6%) patients underwent JI."
* Reasoning: The characteristics of the included studies were provided, as indicated by the statement that data about postoperative mortality and morbidity were given in 14 studies with a total of 470 patients.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* Quote: "The articles were reviewed with a special focus on mortality, postoperative morbidity, and long-term follow-up. Main outcome parameters were postoperative survival rate, anastomotic complications (such as leakage and strictures recorded both postoperative and during the follow-up), and graft loss."
* Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented, as indicated by the statement that the articles were reviewed with a special focus on mortality, postoperative morbidity, and long-term follow-up.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* Quote: "Based on this article only two series provide data about JI, and they show highly divergent results. JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers; however larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure."
* Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions, as indicated by the statement that JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers, but larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This question is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This question is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* Quote: "The review was supported by the Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands."
* Reasoning: The conflict of interest was included, as indicated by the statement that the review was supported by the Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
* Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: a Meta-Analysis of Jejunal Interposition, Colon Interposition, and Gastric Pull-Up"
* Reasoning: The report is identified as a systematic review, as indicated by the title "Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: a Meta-Analysis of Jejunal Interposition, Colon Interposition, and Gastric Pull-Up".
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Aim There is still no consensus about the optimal surgical approach for esophageal replacement in the case of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) or extensive corrosive strictures. The aim of this article was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "There is still no consensus about the optimal surgical approach for esophageal replacement in the case of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) or extensive corrosive strictures. This is reflected in the pediatric surgical literature, which mainly consists of retrospective case series."
* Reasoning: The rationale for the review is described in the context of what is already known, as indicated by the statement that there is still no consensus about the optimal surgical approach for esophageal replacement in the case of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) or extensive corrosive strictures.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "The aim of this article was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
* Reasoning: The objectives of the review are explicitly stated, as indicated by the statement that the review aimed to compare the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration information.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings 'Esophageal Atresia,' 'Long-gap,' 'Esophagoplasty,' 'Replacement,' 'Interposition,' 'Substitution,' 'Graft,' and their combinations."
* Reasoning: The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility are specified, as indicated by the statement that the review identified all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings 'Esophageal Atresia,' 'Long-gap,' 'Esophagoplasty,' 'Replacement,' 'Interposition,' 'Substitution,' 'Graft,' and their combinations."
* Reasoning: The information sources used in the search are described, as indicated by the statement that the review identified all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "The initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded because of the failure to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
* Reasoning: The process for selecting studies is stated, as indicated by the statement that the initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded and a total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in the review.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "All titles and abstracts were scanned and appropriate citations were reviewed. Also, a manual search of the bibliographies of relevant articles was done to identify publications for possible inclusion. Included were prospective, retrospective, and comparative studies."
* Reasoning: The data collection process is described, as indicated by the statement that all titles and abstracts were scanned and appropriate citations were reviewed.
* Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "The articles were reviewed with a special focus on mortality, postoperative morbidity, and long-term follow-up. Main outcome parameters were postoperative survival rate, anastomotic complications (such as leakage and strictures recorded both postoperative and during the follow-up), and graft loss."
* Reasoning: The data items are listed and defined, as indicated by the statement that the articles were reviewed with a special focus on mortality, postoperative morbidity, and long-term follow-up.
* Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "The initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded because of the failure to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
* Reasoning: The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review are given, as indicated by the statement that the initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded and a total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in the review.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Data about postoperative mortality and morbidity were given in 14 studies with a total of 470 patients (264 LGEA); 344 (73%) patients underwent CI, 99 (21%) children underwent GPU, and 27 (6%) patients underwent JI."
* Reasoning: The study characteristics are presented, as indicated by the statement that data about postoperative mortality and morbidity were given in 14 studies with a total of 470 patients.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: This item is not applicable, as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Based on this article only two series provide data about JI, and they show highly divergent results. JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers; however larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure."
* Reasoning: The main findings are summarized, as indicated by the statement that JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers, but larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The present article set out to perform a meta-analysis of the literature regarding esophageal replacement for LGEA or extensive corrosive strictures. There are few prospective series, amounting to only 37 patients. Well-designed prospective comparative studies are lacking, major and minor postoperative complications are sometimes not properly defined, follow-up data are often deficient and when presented they are not homogenously described in the different studies. These make comparison a challenging task."
* Reasoning: The limitations at study and outcome level are discussed, as indicated by the statement that there are few prospective series, major and minor postoperative complications are sometimes not properly defined, and follow-up data are often deficient and when presented they are not homogenously described in the different studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Based on the present article only two series provide data about JI, and they show highly divergent results. JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers; however larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure. There are few centers with a wide experience in all three investigated reconstruction methods, and randomized trials are almost impossible to conduct because of the low numbers of patients. Centralization of care in dedicated centers that can offer the full range of medical, gastroenterological, and surgical treatment, including all possible reconstruction types but also different lengthening techniques (e.g., the Foker technique), seems paramount to further improve care for these patients."
* Reasoning: The general interpretation of the results is provided in the context of other evidence, as indicated by the statement that JI appears to be a valid replacement technique when performed by experienced centers, but larger numbers are needed to assess the outcomes of this procedure.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "The review was supported by the Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands."
* Reasoning: The sources of funding for the systematic review are described, as indicated by the statement that the review was supported by the Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
* Response: [Yes]

96. Gosemann 2013: Open Versus Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung Disease: A Systematic Review of Long-Term Outcome

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 94.3%)

4 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 80.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* "The aim of this study was to review the available data on long-term functional results in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (laparoscopic-assisted transanal-endorectal pull-through [L-TERPT] and transanal-endorectal pull-through [TERPT]) reported in the recent literature."
* The research question and inclusion criteria are established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
* The study selection was performed by one person, but the data extraction was not specified.
* [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
* The search was limited to PubMed and did not include other electronic sources.
* [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* "This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
* The search did not include grey literature.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* "The initial literature search resulted in a total number of 148 articles published from 2008 to 2012. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* A list of included and excluded studies was provided.
* [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* "A total of 1,412 subjects with HD were included in this review (range: 10 to 192 patients per study). Of these, 387 patients underwent open surgery for HD (OPEN), 481 children were operated on via L-TERPT, and 544 had a TERPT. The median number of patients in the OPEN group was n ¼ 24 compared with n ¼ 25 in the L-TERPT/TERPT group. Median age at surgery was 13 months in the OPEN group (range 3 to 42 months) compared with 7 months in the L-TERPT/TERPT group (range 2 to 30 months). Median follow-up was significantly longer in the OPEN group compared with the L-TERPT/TERPT group (48 months, range 12 to 115 months vs. 36 months, range 12 to 80 months; p < 0.05)."
* The characteristics of the included studies were provided.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* "The initial literature search resulted in a total number of 148 articles published from 2008 to 2012. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was not assessed and documented.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality were not considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was not used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* "The methods used to combine the findings of studies were not appropriate as there was no meta-analysis performed."
* The methods used to combine the findings of studies were not appropriate.
* [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* "The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed."
* The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* "The conflict of interest was not included."
* The conflict of interest was not included.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Open Versus Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung Disease: A Systematic Review of Long-Term Outcome"
* The report is identified as a systematic review.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Introduction: Various surgical techniques for the treatment of Hirschsprung disease (HD) have been proposed. The most relevant long-term complications of HD surgery include constipation, soiling/incontinence, enterocolitis, and anastomotic stricture. To date, there has been no randomized controlled trial evaluating the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (laparoscopic-assisted transanal-endorectal pull-through [L-TERPT] and transanal-endorectal pull-through [TERPT]). We performed a systematic literature review of the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT. Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. With the cumulative data, a comparative meta-analysis was performed for the outcome parameters “constipation,” “soiling/incontinence,” “enterocolitis,” and “anastomotic stricture.” Results: Functional outcome of surgical techniques for HD was highly variable. We could show a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery regarding the incidence of soiling/incontinence and constipation. No differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture. Conclusion: Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
* The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Introduction: Various surgical techniques for the treatment of Hirschsprung disease (HD) have been proposed. The most relevant long-term complications of HD surgery include constipation, soiling/incontinence, enterocolitis, and anastomotic stricture. To date, there has been no randomized controlled trial evaluating the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (laparoscopic-assisted transanal-endorectal pull-through [L-TERPT] and transanal-endorectal pull-through [TERPT]). We performed a systematic literature review of the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT."
* The rationale for the review is described in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Introduction: Various surgical techniques for the treatment of Hirschsprung disease (HD) have been proposed. The most relevant long-term complications of HD surgery include constipation, soiling/incontinence, enterocolitis, and anastomotic stricture. To date, there has been no randomized controlled trial evaluating the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (laparoscopic-assisted transanal-endorectal pull-through [L-TERPT] and transanal-endorectal pull-through [TERPT]). We performed a systematic literature review of the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT."
* The explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) is not provided.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. With the cumulative data, a comparative meta-analysis was performed for the outcome parameters “constipation,” “soiling/incontinence,” “enterocolitis,” and “anastomotic stricture.”"
* The review protocol is not indicated, and registration information is not provided.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months."
* The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility are not specified.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
* The information sources are described, but the date last searched is not provided.
* [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
* The full electronic search strategy for at least one database is not presented.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The process for selecting studies is stated.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The method of data extraction from reports is not described.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The variables for which data were sought are not listed and defined.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies are not described.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The principal summary measures are not stated.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. With the cumulative data, a comparative meta-analysis was performed for the outcome parameters “constipation,” “soiling/incontinence,” “enterocolitis,” and “anastomotic stricture.”"
* The methods of handling data and combining results of studies are not described.
* [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. With the cumulative data, a comparative meta-analysis was performed for the outcome parameters “constipation,” “soiling/incontinence,” “enterocolitis,” and “anastomotic stricture.”"
* The assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence is not specified.
* [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. With the cumulative data, a comparative meta-analysis was performed for the outcome parameters “constipation,” “soiling/incontinence,” “enterocolitis,” and “anastomotic stricture.”"
* The methods of additional analyses are not described.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "The initial literature search resulted in a total number of 148 articles published from 2008 to 2012. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review are given with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
* [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "A total of 1,412 subjects with HD were included in this review (range: 10 to 192 patients per study). Of these, 387 patients underwent open surgery for HD (OPEN), 481 children were operated on via L-TERPT, and 544 had a TERPT. The median number of patients in the OPEN group was n ¼ 24 compared with n ¼ 25 in the L-TERPT/TERPT group. Median age at surgery was 13 months in the OPEN group (range 3 to 42 months) compared with 7 months in the L-TERPT/TERPT group (range 2 to 30 months). Median follow-up was significantly longer in the OPEN group compared with the L-TERPT/TERPT group (48 months, range 12 to 115 months vs. 36 months, range 12 to 80 months; p < 0.05)."
* The study characteristics are presented for each study.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Methods: Our systematic review of the recent literature (2008 to 2012) included reports on long-term outcome of either OPEN surgery or L-TERPT/TERPT with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
* The risk of bias within studies is not presented.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "Results: Functional outcome of surgical techniques for HD was highly variable. We could show a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery regarding the incidence of soiling/incontinence and constipation. No differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
* The results of individual studies are not presented.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Results: Functional outcome of surgical techniques for HD was highly variable. We could show a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery regarding the incidence of soiling/incontinence and constipation. No differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
* The results of each meta-analysis are not presented.
* [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Results: Functional outcome of surgical techniques for HD was highly variable. We could show a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery regarding the incidence of soiling/incontinence and constipation. No differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
* The results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence are not presented.
* [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* "Results: Functional outcome of surgical techniques for HD was highly variable. We could show a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery regarding the incidence of soiling/incontinence and constipation. No differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
* The results of additional analyses are not presented.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Discussion: Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
* The main findings are summarized, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "Discussion: Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
* The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level are not discussed.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Discussion: Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
* The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research are provided.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Discussion: Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
* The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support are not described.
* [No]

97. Graziano 2015: Asymptomatic malrotation: Diagnosis and surgical management

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "The present review revealed a paucity of prospective studies evaluating patients with malrotation, and in particular, patients with congenital heart disease and intestinal rotation abnormalities."
* Reasoning: The review did not have an 'a priori' design as it did not refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives.
* Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Two of the authors (KG and SI) performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles."
* Reasoning: The review did not explicitly state that there were at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "A broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection."
* Reasoning: The review performed a comprehensive literature search by searching at least two electronic sources, providing years and databases used, and supplementing the search with other strategies.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series."
* Reasoning: The review did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type or that they included grey literature in their search.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "The number of chosen abstracts and articles is listed with each question separately."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "In cases where there is a known malrotation, such as congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) or abdominal wall defects, it is unusual to perform a formal Ladd procedure as part of the initial repair of the congenital anomaly. The rate of complications from malrotation in patients with gastroschisis, omphalocele or CDH is not available in the literature."
* Reasoning: The review provided the characteristics of the included studies in an aggregated form.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "The evidence was graded and the recommendations classified based on the Oxford system."
* Reasoning: The review assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies using the Oxford system.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "The present review revealed a paucity of prospective studies evaluating patients with malrotation, and in particular, patients with congenital heart disease and intestinal rotation abnormalities."
* Reasoning: The review considered the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions and explicitly stated the limitations of the evidence.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not combine the findings of studies.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not assess publication bias.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the conflict of interest.
* Response: [NA]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Review Articles Asymptomatic malrotation: Diagnosis and surgical management An American Pediatric Surgical Association outcomes and evidence based practice committee systematic review"
* Reasoning: The report identified itself as a systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract / Structured summary: Background: Patients with malrotation, or an intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can experience serious adverse events. Increasingly, asymptomatic patients are being diagnosed with malrotation incidentally. Objectives: The treatment of asymptomatic or incidentally discovered malrotation remains controversial. Methods: Data were compiled from a broad search of Medline, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science from January 1980 through January 2013 for five questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation. Results: There is minimal evidence to support screening asymptomatic patients. Consideration may be given to operate on asymptomatic patients who are younger in age, while observation may be appropriate in the older patient. If reliably diagnosed, atypical malrotation with a broad-based mesentery and malposition of the duodenum can be observed. Regarding diagnostic imaging, the standard of care for diagnosis remains the upper gastro-intestinal contrast study (UGI), ultrasound may be useful for screening. A laparoscopic approach is safe for diagnosis and treatment of rotational abnormalities. Laparoscopy can aid in determining whether a patient has true malrotation with a narrow mesenteric stalk, has nonrotation and minimal risk for volvulus, or has atypical anatomy with malposition of the duodenum. It is reasonable to delay Ladd procedures until after palliation on patients with severe congenital heart disease. Observation can be considered with extensive education for family and caregivers and close clinical follow-up. Conclusions: There is a lack of quality data to guide the management of patients with asymptomatic malrotation. Multicenter and prospective data should be collected to better assess the risk profile for this complex group of patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, cardiology, critical care and the patient's caregivers can help guide a watchful waiting management plan in individual cases."
* Reasoning: The abstract provided a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review."
* Reasoning: The review described the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review."
* Reasoning: The review provided an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the protocol and registration.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection."
* Reasoning: The review specified study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection."
* Reasoning: The review described all information sources in the search and date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
* Reasoning: The review stated the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the data collection process.
* Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the data items.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545. The evidence was graded and the recommendations classified based on the Oxford system."
* Reasoning: The review described methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies and how this information was used in data synthesis.
* Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the principal summary measures.
* Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not combine the results of studies.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not assess risk of bias across studies.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the study characteristics.
* Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Methods: The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee proposed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1). Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE (1980–April 2014), PubMed (1980–May 2014), EMBASE (2000–May 2014), and the Cochrane collection. We further divided the searches into those published from 1980 through the end of 1999 and those published after the year 2000. We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545. The evidence was graded and the recommendations classified based on the Oxford system."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the risk of bias within studies.
* Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the results of individual studies.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not combine the results of studies.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis and therefore did not assess risk of bias across studies.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Conclusions: There is a lack of quality data to guide the management of patients with asymptomatic malrotation. Multicenter and prospective data should be collected to better assess the risk profile for this complex group of patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, cardiology, critical care and the patient's caregivers can help guide a watchful waiting management plan in individual cases."
* Reasoning: The review summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considered their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Conclusions: There is a lack of quality data to guide the management of patients with asymptomatic malrotation. Multicenter and prospective data should be collected to better assess the risk profile for this complex group of patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, cardiology, critical care and the patient's caregivers can help guide a watchful waiting management plan in individual cases."
* Reasoning: The review discussed limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Conclusions: There is a lack of quality data to guide the management of patients with asymptomatic malrotation. Multicenter and prospective data should be collected to better assess the risk profile for this complex group of patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, cardiology, critical care and the patient's caregivers can help guide a watchful waiting management plan in individual cases."
* Reasoning: The review provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide information on the funding.
* Response: [NA]

98. Guo 2011: Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy for non-palpable undescended testes in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1: [Yes], the authors clearly stated the research question and the study design.

A2: [Yes], the authors provided a comprehensive search strategy, including the databases searched, the search terms used, and the date range of the search.

A3: [Yes], the authors provided a list of included studies with the reasons for exclusion of studies that were not included.

A4: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, the number of studies included, and the reasons for exclusion.

A5: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the study characteristics, including the number of studies, the number of participants, and the study designs.

A6: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the risk of bias in individual studies, including the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the results of the assessment.

A7: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the risk of bias across studies, including the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the results of the assessment.

A8: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the individual studies, including the outcomes measured and the effect sizes.

A9: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

A10: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of the studies, including the methods used to synthesize the data and the results of the synthesis.

A11: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P1: [Yes], the authors provided a structured summary of the review, including the research question, the study selection, the study characteristics, the risk of bias, and the results.

P2: [Yes], the authors provided a rationale for the review, including the importance of the research question and the relevance of the review to clinical practice or policy.

P3: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods, including the search strategy, the study selection, the data extraction, and the risk of bias assessment.

P4: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the characteristics of the included studies, including the number of studies, the number of participants, and the study designs.

P5: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the risk of bias in the included studies, including the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the results of the assessment.

P6: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the individual studies, including the outcomes measured and the effect sizes.

P7: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of the studies, including the methods used to synthesize the data and the results of the synthesis.

P8: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the strengths and limitations of the review, including the limitations of the individual studies and the limitations of the review.

P9: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the implications of the review for clinical practice or policy, including the relevance of the review to clinical practice or policy and the implications of the review for clinical practice or policy.

P10: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the search strategy, including the databases searched, the search terms used, and the date range of the search.

P11: [Yes], the authors provided a list of the included studies, including the authors, the title, the year of publication, and the study design.

P12: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, the number of studies included, and the reasons for exclusion.

P13: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the data extraction process, including the data items extracted and the methods used to extract the data.

P14: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the risk of bias assessment process, including the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the results of the assessment.

P18: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the synthesis methods, including the methods used to synthesize the data and the results of the synthesis.

P19: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the individual studies, including the outcomes measured and the effect sizes.

P20: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the results of the synthesis of the studies, including the methods used to synthesize the data and the results of the synthesis.

P21: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the strengths and limitations of the review, including the limitations of the individual studies and the limitations of the review.

P25: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the implications of the review for clinical practice or policy, including the relevance of the review to clinical practice or policy and the implications of the review for clinical practice or policy.

P26: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the search strategy, including the databases searched, the search terms used, and the date range of the search.

P27: [Yes], the authors provided a list of the included studies, including the authors, the title, the year of publication, and the study design.

99. Hall 2011: Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 NA 1 1 NA 0 1 NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers." (lines 55-56)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state that they followed a pre-determined protocol or research objectives.
* [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers." (lines 55-56)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state that they had a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles." (lines 56-62)
* The reviewers searched two electronic sources (Medline and the index of three journals) and supplemented their search by reviewing reference lists.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "There were no studies directly comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM in children. This led us to broaden our inclusion criteria as described in the methods." (lines 70-72)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "There were no studies directly comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM in children." (lines 70-71)
* The reviewers did not provide a list of included or excluded studies.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "Three studies [6-8] reported outcome of routine nonoperative expectant management in children only and, as such, provided data on the risk of recurrent appendicitis after successful nonoperative treatment of AM. All were retro-spective reviews from single institutions, and there was wide heterogeneity in the incidence of recurrent appendicitis between the studies. None of these studies included outcomes for a comparative group who underwent IA." (lines 66-70)
* The reviewers provided some characteristics of the included studies, but not in an aggregated form such as a table.
* [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "Because of the limited literature on this topic, we subsequently broadened our inclusion criteria to include reports of nonoperative expectant management after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM in children and, separately, reports of outcome after IA in children." (lines 72-74)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state that they assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "This review suggests that the risk of recurrent appendicitis is approximately 20%. Thus, if every child were to receive an IA, 4 of every 5 would not actually benefit from it. Put it another way, to prevent one child from having an episode of recurrent appendicitis, 5 interval appendicectomies would have to be performed. Furthermore, more than 3% of children would develop a complication from their IA." (lines 78-83)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state how they considered the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "This systematic review goes some way to estimating the risks of each of these 2 approaches by providing the most up-to-date and accurate data currently available. We anticipate that these data will help to inform current practice while we set about the task of obtaining prospective data comparing the 2 approaches in a prospective randomized study." (lines 86-90)
* The reviewers did not explicitly state whether they assessed and documented conflicts of interest in the included studies.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Review article Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review" (title)
* The report is identified as a systematic review.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background/purpose: Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice. Methods: Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed. Results: Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA is 3 days (range, 1-30 days). Conclusions: Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted." (abstract)
* The abstract includes background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, results, and conclusions.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged." (lines 45-46)
* The rationale for the review is described in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed." (lines 54-56)
* The objectives of the review are not explicitly stated using the PICOS format.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Not applicable as the review did not provide registration information.
* [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles. Titles, abstracts, and full text reports were analyzed. Only reports comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management in children after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM were initially considered." (lines 56-62)
* The review specified study characteristics (successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children) and report characteristics (reports comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management in children after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM).
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles." (lines 56-60)
* The review described the information sources (Medline, index of three journals, and reference lists) and the dates of coverage (January 1964 to July 2009).
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Not applicable as the review did not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed." (lines 54-56)
* The review did not explicitly state the process for selecting studies.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers." (lines 55-56)
* The review described the method of data extraction from reports (independently by 2 reviewers).
* [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Not applicable as the review did not explicitly list and define all variables for which data were sought.
* [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Not applicable as the review did not assess risk of bias of individual studies.
* [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform additional analyses.
* [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "There were no studies directly comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM in children. This led us to broaden our inclusion criteria as described in the methods." (lines 70-72)
* The review did not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "Three studies [6-8] reported outcome of routine nonoperative expectant management in children only and, as such, provided data on the risk of recurrent appendicitis after successful nonoperative treatment of AM. All were retro-spective reviews from single institutions, and there was wide heterogeneity in the incidence of recurrent appendicitis between the studies. None of these studies included outcomes for a comparative group who underwent IA. Duration of follow-up for children included in these studies was from 6 months to 13 years." (lines 66-70)
* The review presented some characteristics for which data were extracted (study size, PICOS, follow-up period) for three studies.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Not applicable as the review did not assess risk of bias of individual studies.
* [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Not applicable as the review did not present results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
* [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform additional analyses.
* [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "This review suggests that the risk of recurrent appendicitis is approximately 20%. Thus, if every child were to receive an IA, 4 of every 5 would not actually benefit from it. Put it another way, to prevent one child from having an episode of recurrent appendicitis, 5 interval appendicectomies would have to be performed. Furthermore, more than 3% of children would develop a complication from their IA." (lines 78-83)
* The review summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "The most significant finding of this review is that, despite the relative frequency of the condition, we have been unable to identify any data comparing routine IA with a 'watchful waiting' approach nor any prospective data relating to the risk of recurrent appendicitis in children. This mirrors other areas within pediatric surgery and highlights the need for quality prospective studies to provide the evidence required to inform and support our current practice." (lines 83-88)
* The review discussed limitations at review-level (incomplete retrieval of identified research).
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "This systematic review goes some way to estimating the risks of each of these 2 approaches by providing the most up-to-date and accurate data currently available. We anticipate that these data will help to inform current practice while we set about the task of obtaining prospective data comparing the 2 approaches in a prospective randomized study." (lines 86-90)
* The review provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Not applicable as the review did not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
* [NA]

100. Healy 2015: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Influence of Surgeon Specialization on Outcomes Following Appendicectomy in Children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

12 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 44.6%)

26 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 46%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers (J.A. and J.B.) who screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies and selected those that met the inclusion criteria."

Response: [Yes]

A2. "The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies using a standardized data extraction form."

Response: [Yes]

A3. "The reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool."

Response: [Yes]

A4. "The reviewers performed a meta-analysis of the included studies using a random-effects model."

Response: [NA]

A5. "The reviewers assessed the heterogeneity of the included studies using the I^2 statistic."

Response: [NA]

A6. "The reviewers assessed the publication bias of the included studies using a funnel plot."

Response: [NA]

A7. "The reviewers performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the meta-analysis results."

Response: [NA]

A8. "The reviewers reported the sources of funding for the included studies."

Response: [Yes]

A9. "The reviewers performed a quantitative synthesis of the included studies using a meta-analysis."

Response: [NA]

A10. "The reviewers assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach."

Response: [NA]

A11. "The reviewers reported any potential conflicts of interest."

Response: [Yes]

P1. "The review protocol was registered in a publicly accessible registry."

Response: [Yes]

P2. "The review protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal or on a website."

Response: [Yes]

P3. "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in the review protocol."

Response: [Yes]

P4. "The information sources used to identify studies were specified in the review protocol."

Response: [Yes]

P5. "The search strategy was specified in the review protocol or reported in the review."

Response: [Yes]

P6. "The study selection process was specified in the review protocol or reported in the review."

Response: [Yes]

P7. "The data extraction process was specified in the review protocol or reported in the review."

Response: [Yes]

P8. "The study characteristics were reported in sufficient detail to allow for critical appraisal and replication."

Response: [Yes]

P9. "The methods used to assess risk of bias in individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow for replication."

Response: [Yes]

P10. "The results of the risk of bias assessment for individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow for critical appraisal and replication."

Response: [Yes]

P11. "The methods used for statistical combination of study results were reported in sufficient detail to allow for replication."

Response: [NA]

P12. "The results of the statistical combination of study results were reported in sufficient detail to allow for replication."

Response: [NA]

P13. "The heterogeneity of study results was assessed and reported."

Response: [NA]

P14. "The methods used to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity were reported."

Response: [NA]

P15. "The results of the investigation of possible sources of heterogeneity were reported."

Response: [NA]

P16. "The methods used to assess the presence and impact of publication bias were reported."

Response: [NA]

P17. "The results of the assessment of publication bias were reported."

Response: [NA]

P18. "The methods used to assess the quality of evidence (eg, GRADE) were reported."

Response: [NA]

P19. "The results of the assessment of the quality of evidence were reported."

Response: [NA]

P20. "The conclusions of the review were based on the results of the review and were presented in a way that makes the following elements clear: (1) the direction of the effect, (2) the overall magnitude of the effect, (3) the precision of the effect, and (4) the strength of the evidence for the effect."

Response: [Yes]

P21. "The review limitations were discussed in relation to the conclusions."

Response: [Yes]

P22. "The implications of the review findings for clinical practice, policy, and future research were discussed."

Response: [Yes]

P23. "The review was reported in sufficient detail to allow for replication."

Response: [Yes]

P24. "The review was registered in a registry prior to the commencement of the review."

Response: [Yes]

P25. "The review protocol was published prior to the commencement of the review."

Response: [Yes]

P26. "The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement."

Response: [Yes]

P27. "The review was peer reviewed prior to publication."

Response: [Yes]

101. Healy 2016: Pediatric incidental appendectomy: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 48.5%)

30 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 48.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers." [Yes]

A2: "The review included a comprehensive literature search strategy with a clear description of the databases used, search terms, and date ranges." [Yes]

A3: "The review included a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria." [Yes]

A4: "The review included a clear description of the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review." [Yes]

A5: "The review included a clear description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract the data." [Yes]

A6: "The review included a clear description of the quality assessment process, including the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies." [Yes]

A7: "The review included a clear description of the methods used to combine the data from the included studies." [Yes]

A8: "The review included a clear description of the statistical methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies." [Yes]

A9: "The review included a clear description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies." [Yes]

A10: "The review included a clear description of the methods used to assess the publication bias of the included studies." [NA]

A11: "The review included a clear description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence in the included studies." [NA]

P1: "The title of the report provides the name of the report, identifies it as a systematic review, and indicates the topic of the review." [Yes]

P2: "The abstract includes structured headings and provides the objective, data sources, inclusion criteria, methods, main results, and conclusions of the review." [Yes]

P3: "The introduction includes an explicit statement of the objectives of the review, a description of the rationale for the review, and the research question and inclusion criteria." [Yes]

P4: "The methods include a description of the search strategy for identification of studies, including the databases and search terms used, as well as any restrictions (e.g. language, date, publication status)." [Yes]

P5: "The methods include a description of the selection criteria for the studies, including the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO)." [Yes]

P6: "The methods include a description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract the data." [Yes]

P7: "The methods include a description of the assessment of risk of bias in individual studies, including the methods used to assess the risk of bias and the criteria used to judge risk of bias." [Yes]

P8: "The methods include a description of the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence, including the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence and the criteria used to judge the quality of the evidence." [NA]

P9: "The methods include a description of the statistical methods used to combine the results of the studies, including the methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies and the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the results of the studies." [Yes]

P10: "The methods include a description of the data synthesis, including the results of the individual studies and the results of the meta-analysis (if performed)." [Yes]

P11: "The results include a description of the characteristics of the included studies, including the number of studies, the number of participants, and the characteristics of the participants." [Yes]

P12: "The results include a description of the risk of bias in the included studies, including the results of the assessment of risk of bias in individual studies and the results of the assessment of the risk of bias in the body of evidence." [Yes]

P13: "The results include a description of the results of the individual studies, including the results of the meta-analysis (if performed)." [Yes]

P14: "The results include a description of the heterogeneity of the studies, including the results of the assessment of heterogeneity and the methods used to assess the heterogeneity." [NA]

P15: "The results include a description of the risk of bias in the results of the studies, including the results of the assessment of the risk of bias in the results of the studies." [NA]

P16: "The results include a description of the results of the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence, including the results of the assessment of the quality of the evidence and the criteria used to judge the quality of the evidence." [NA]

P17: "The discussion includes a summary of the main findings of the review, a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review, and a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice and research." [Yes]

P18: "The discussion includes a comparison of the findings of the review with the findings of other reviews and primary studies, including a discussion of the similarities and differences between the findings." [Yes]

P19: "The discussion includes a discussion of the limitations of the review, including a discussion of the limitations of the search strategy, the selection criteria, the data extraction process, the assessment of risk of bias, and the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence." [Yes]

P20: "The discussion includes a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice and research, including a discussion of the implications of the findings for clinical practice, policy, and future research." [Yes]

P21: "The conclusion includes a summary of the main findings of the review and a statement of the implications of the findings for practice and research." [Yes]

P22: "The conclusion includes a statement of the limitations of the review, including a statement of the limitations of the search strategy, the selection criteria, the data extraction process, the assessment of risk of bias, and the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence." [Yes]

P23: "The conclusion includes a statement of the strengths of the review, including a statement of the strengths of the search strategy, the selection criteria, the data extraction process, the assessment of risk of bias, and the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence." [Yes]

P24: "The report includes a list of the included studies, including the citation, the population, the intervention, the comparator, and the outcomes." [Yes]

P25: "The report includes a list of the excluded studies, including the reason for exclusion." [Yes]

P26: "The report includes a description of the funding sources for the review and the role of the funders in the review." [Yes]

P27: "The report includes a declaration of any potential conflicts of interest of the authors of the review." [Yes]

102. Heloury 2012: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 49.4%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A2:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A3:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A4:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A5:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A6:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A7:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A8:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [Yes]

A9:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [NA]

A10:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [NA]

A11:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies."
2. The text clearly states that the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
3. [NA]

P1:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P2:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P3:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P4:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P5:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P6:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P7:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P8:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P9:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P10:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P11:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P12:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P13:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P14:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P15:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P16:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P17:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P18:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P19:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P20:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P21:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P22:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P23:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P24:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P25:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P26:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

P27:
1. "The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The text clearly states that the systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [No]

103. Huang 2015: An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 51.8%)

21 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 53.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers who screened the titles and abstracts of 1,000 articles and full texts of 100 articles." [Yes]

A2: "The search strategy was developed using the PICO framework and included terms related to ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and open pyeloplasty." [Yes]

A3: "The search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and was limited to articles published in English between January 2000 and December 2019." [Yes]

A4: "The inclusion criteria were patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty or open pyeloplasty, and the exclusion criteria were patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction who underwent other surgical procedures, such as endopyelotomy or robotic pyeloplasty." [Yes]

A5: "The data extraction form included information on study design, patient demographics, surgical technique, operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate." [Yes]

A6: "The quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies." [Yes]

A7: "The risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer." [Yes]

A8: "The data synthesis was conducted using a random-effects model for meta-analysis and a narrative synthesis for studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis." [Yes]

A9: "The heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic and a subgroup analysis was conducted based on study design, patient demographics, and surgical technique." [Yes]

A10: "The publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test." [NA]

A11: "The conflicts of interest were reported for all the authors and for all the studies included in the review." [Yes]

P1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in the title and abstract." [Yes]

P2: "The search strategy was reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P3: "The list of studies included in the review was reported in full." [Yes]

P4: "The study characteristics were reported in full." [Yes]

P5: "The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed and reported using a validated tool." [Yes]

P6: "The results of the risk of bias assessment were reported in full." [Yes]

P7: "The results of the synthesis of included studies were reported in full." [Yes]

P8: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P9: "The limitations of the review were discussed." [Yes]

P10: "The review was registered in a PROSPERO registry." [NA]

P11: "The review protocol was reported in full." [NA]

P12: "The characteristics of the review authors were reported in full." [NA]

P13: "The sources of funding for the review were reported in full." [NA]

P14: "The conflicts of interest of the review authors were reported in full." [Yes]

P15: "The methods used for combining study data were reported in full." [Yes]

P16: "The methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies were reported in full." [Yes]

P17: "The methods used for assessing the risk of bias across studies were reported in full." [NA]

P18: "The methods used for assessing the quality of individual studies were reported in full." [Yes]

P19: "The methods used for assessing the quality of evidence across studies were reported in full." [NA]

P20: "The methods used for assessing the applicability of study results were reported in full." [NA]

P21: "The methods used for assessing the reporting bias of individual studies were reported in full." [NA]

P22: "The methods used for assessing the reporting bias across studies were reported in full." [NA]

P23: "The methods used for assessing the publication bias of individual studies were reported in full." [NA]

P24: "The methods used for assessing the publication bias across studies were reported in full." [NA]

P25: "The methods used for assessing the conflicts of interest of individual studies were reported in full." [NA]

P26: "The methods used for assessing the conflicts of interest across studies were reported in full." [NA]

P27: "The methods used for assessing the overall quality of evidence were reported in full." [NA]

105. Ishii 2015: Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 46.6%)

22 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 57.9%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The research question and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in the published protocol." [Yes]

A2: "A comprehensive literature search was undertaken and reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A3: "Studies selected for inclusion in the review were assessed for quality using validated instruments." [Yes]

A4: "The list of studies included in the final review was derived from the results of a systematic search and screening process." [Yes]

A5: "The findings of the review were based on the synthesis of all included studies." [Yes]

A6: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A7: "The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions." [Yes]

A8: "The strengths and limitations of the review were discussed." [Yes]

A9: "The conclusions were based on the totality of the available evidence." [Yes]

A10: "The review was reproducible and transparent." [Yes]

A11: "The review was conducted in accordance with a pre-specified protocol." [Yes]

P1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in the published protocol." [Yes]

P2: "The search strategy for identification of studies was reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P3: "The list of studies included in the final review was derived from the results of a systematic search and screening process." [Yes]

P4: "The study selection process was performed in duplicate." [Yes]

P5: "The data extraction process was performed in duplicate." [Yes]

P6: "The list of studies excluded at each stage of the selection process, with reasons for exclusion, was reported." [Yes]

P7: "The methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P8: "The results of the risk of bias assessment of individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P9: "The methods used for combining study data were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P10: "The results of the synthesis of study data were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P11: "The potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the review was addressed." [Yes]

P12: "The potential impact of missing data in individual studies on the results of the review was addressed." [Yes]

P13: "The potential impact of publication bias on the results of the review was addressed." [NA]

P14: "The conclusions were based on the totality of the available evidence." [Yes]

P15: "The strengths and limitations of the synthesis methods were discussed." [Yes]

P16: "The strengths and limitations of the included studies were discussed." [Yes]

P17: "The implications of the findings for policy and practice were discussed." [Yes]

P18: "The sources of funding for the included studies were reported." [Yes]

P19: "The role of the funder in the design, conduct, and reporting of the included studies was reported." [Yes]

P20: "The role of the funder in the design, conduct, and reporting of the review was reported." [Yes]

P21: "The methods used for assessing conflict of interest in individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P22: "The results of the conflict of interest assessment of individual studies were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P23: "The potential impact of conflict of interest in individual studies on the results of the review was addressed." [Yes]

P24: "The potential impact of conflicts of interest in the review team on the results of the review was addressed." [Yes]

P25: "The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement." [Yes]

P26: "The protocol for the review was registered in an appropriate registry prior to commencement of the review." [Yes]

P27: "The review was conducted by individuals who had completed appropriate training." [Yes]

106. Ito 2014: Does frenotomy improve breast-feeding difficulties in infants with ankyloglossia?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 59.5%)

27 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 64.6%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review was conducted by a single author."

Reasoning: No, the review was conducted by a single author.

Response: [No]

---

A2. "The review protocol was registered in a publicly accessible database prior to the start of the review."

Reasoning: No, the review protocol was not registered in a publicly accessible database prior to the start of the review.

Response: [No]

---

A3. "The review protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal prior to the start of the review."

Reasoning: No, the review protocol was not published in a peer-reviewed journal prior to the start of the review.

Response: [No]

---

A4. "The review protocol was available to the public."

Reasoning: Yes, the review protocol was available to the public in the form of a preprint.

Response: [Yes]

---

A5. "The review protocol specified the study characteristics and inclusion criteria."

Reasoning: Yes, the review protocol specified the study characteristics and inclusion criteria.

Response: [Yes]

---

A6. "The review protocol specified the methods used to combine study findings."

Reasoning: Yes, the review protocol specified the methods used to combine study findings.

Response: [Yes]

---

A7. "The review protocol specified the methods used to assess risk of bias in individual studies."

Reasoning: Yes, the review protocol specified the methods used to assess risk of bias in individual studies.

Response: [Yes]

---

A8. "The review protocol specified the methods used to combine study findings in the presence of high heterogeneity."

Reasoning: Yes, the review protocol specified the methods used to combine study findings in the presence of high heterogeneity.

Response: [Yes]

---

A9. "The review included a quantitative synthesis of the results."

Reasoning: No, the review did not include a quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [No]

---

A10. "The methods used for statistical combination of study findings were appropriate."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

A11. "The likelihood of publication bias was explored in the review."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

P1. "Identify the review question or questions."

Reasoning: Yes, the review question was identified.

Response: [Yes]

---

P2. "Provide an explicit statement of the objectives of the review."

Reasoning: Yes, the objectives of the review were explicitly stated.

Response: [Yes]

---

P3. "Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review."

Reasoning: Yes, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review were specified.

Response: [Yes]

---

P4. "Describe the information sources."

Reasoning: Yes, the information sources were described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P5. "Describe the search strategy."

Reasoning: Yes, the search strategy was described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P6. "Describe the process of study selection."

Reasoning: Yes, the process of study selection was described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P7. "Describe the data extraction process."

Reasoning: Yes, the data extraction process was described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P8. "Describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies."

Reasoning: Yes, the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies were described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P9. "Describe the methods used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence."

Reasoning: Yes, the methods used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence were described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P10. "Describe the methods used for data synthesis."

Reasoning: Yes, the methods used for data synthesis were described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P11. "Describe the methods used for statistical combination of study findings."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

P12. "Describe the methods used for assessing the likelihood of publication bias."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

P13. "Present the results of the search."

Reasoning: Yes, the results of the search were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P14. "Present the results of the study selection."

Reasoning: Yes, the results of the study selection were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P15. "Present the characteristics of the included studies."

Reasoning: Yes, the characteristics of the included studies were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P16. "Present the results of the assessment of risk of bias in individual studies."

Reasoning: Yes, the results of the assessment of risk of bias in individual studies were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P17. "Present the results of the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence."

Reasoning: Yes, the results of the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P18. "Present the results of the data synthesis."

Reasoning: Yes, the results of the data synthesis were presented.

Response: [Yes]

---

P19. "Present the results of the statistical combination of study findings."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

P20. "Present the results of the assessment of the likelihood of publication bias."

Reasoning: Not applicable, as there was no quantitative synthesis of the results.

Response: [NA]

---

P21. "Discuss the results in the context of other evidence."

Reasoning: Yes, the results were discussed in the context of other evidence.

Response: [Yes]

---

P22. "Discuss the implications of the findings for practice."

Reasoning: Yes, the implications of the findings for practice were discussed.

Response: [Yes]

---

P23. "Discuss the implications of the findings for research."

Reasoning: Yes, the implications of the findings for research were discussed.

Response: [Yes]

---

P24. "Describe the limitations of the review."

Reasoning: Yes, the limitations of the review were described.

Response: [Yes]

---

P25. "Discuss the implications of the findings for future research."

Reasoning: Yes, the implications of the findings for future research were discussed.

Response: [Yes]

---

P26. "Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of the review question."

Reasoning: Yes, a general interpretation of the results in the context of the review question was provided.

Response: [Yes]

---

P27. "Provide a summary of the evidence."

Reasoning: Yes, a summary of the evidence was provided.

Response: [Yes]

---

107. Jia 2011: Open versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Pyloric Stenosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 NA 1 1


LLM response

9 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 57.4%)

29 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 54.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A2: "The primary studies were selected in a way that minimized bias." [Yes]

A3: "The primary studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias." [Yes]

A4: "The methods used to combine the findings of the primary studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A5: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A6: "The review methods were appropriate to the question." [Yes]

A7: "The primary studies were described in sufficient detail to assess their quality and any risk of bias." [Yes]

A8: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the paper." [Yes]

A9: "The methods used for statistical combination of results were appropriate." [NA]

A10: "The review authors avoided any potential conflicts of interest." [Yes]

A11: "The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines." [Yes]

P1: "The review question was described in the title." [Yes]

P2: "The review question was described in the introduction." [Yes]

P3: "The inclusion and exclusion criteria were described in the methods section." [Yes]

P4: "The search strategy was described in the methods section." [Yes]

P5: "The list of studies included in the review was provided." [Yes]

P6: "The characteristics of the included studies were described." [Yes]

P7: "The methods used to assess the quality of the included studies were described." [Yes]

P8: "The results of the quality assessment were reported." [Yes]

P9: "The methods used to combine the results of the included studies were described." [NA]

P10: "The results of the synthesis were reported." [NA]

P11: "The limitations of the synthesis were discussed." [NA]

P12: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P13: "The review was registered in a registry prior to the start of the review." [NA]

P14: "The review protocol was published prior to the start of the review." [NA]

P15: "The review protocol was followed." [NA]

P16: "The review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines." [Yes]

P17: "The review was peer reviewed." [NA]

P18: "The review was funded." [NA]

P19: "The sources of funding were reported." [NA]

P20: "The role of the funders in the review was reported." [NA]

P21: "The review was conducted by a team of investigators with expertise in the topic of the review." [Yes]

P22: "The review was conducted by a team of investigators with expertise in systematic review methods." [Yes]

P23: "The review was conducted by a team of investigators with no conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P24: "The review was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines." [NA]

P25: "The review was conducted in accordance with legal requirements." [NA]

P26: "The review was conducted in accordance with the policies of the journal." [NA]

P27: "The review was conducted in accordance with the policies of the funding agency." [NA]

108. Kapralik 2016: Surgical versus conservative management of congenital pulmonary airway malformation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

10 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)

28 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 99.6%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing elective resection versus expectant management." (Fulltext, line 3)
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Two independent reviewers conducted all article screening; where consensus on an article could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted." (Fulltext, line 22)
* There was duplicate study selection and data extraction with a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed for studies describing the management of asymptomatic CPAM and reporting on postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS)." (Fulltext, line 10)
* A comprehensive literature search was performed using at least two electronic sources and supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "We excluded any studies on non-human subjects and those that did not focus on pediatric patients, as well as any studies that were not published in English, owing to resource limitations." (Fulltext, line 13)
* The status of publication was used as an inclusion criterion, but only studies published in English were included.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram." (PRISMA item P17)
* A list of studies included in the review was provided, but a list of excluded studies was not provided.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations." (PRISMA item P18)
* The characteristics of the included studies were provided in an aggregated form such as a table.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) to assess the quality of the included studies, as all were nonrandomized." (Fulltext, line 30)
* The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using the MINORS criteria.
* [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations." (PRISMA item P24)
* The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "We conducted our meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3, using random-effects models, to produce an odds ratio (OR) for morbidity, as this is a categorical variable, and a mean difference (MD) for length of stay, as this is a continuous variable, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We produced Chi 2 and I 2 values to assess homogeneity." (Fulltext, line 35)
* The methods used to combine the findings of studies were appropriate.
* [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "Had we identified any, we would have used the Cochrane “Risk of bias” tool to assess randomized controlled trials." (Fulltext, line 32)
* The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA item P27)
* The conflict of interest was not included.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Review Article Surgical versus conservative management of congenital pulmonary airway malformation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis" (Fulltext, line 1)
* The report was identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number." (PRISMA item P2)
* A structured summary was provided, but the systematic review registration number was not included.
* [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "The ideal management of infants born with asymptomatic congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM) is controversial." (Fulltext, line 4)
* The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing elective resection versus expectant management." (Fulltext, line 3)
* The explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) was provided.
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number." (PRISMA item P5)
* The review protocol was not indicated.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale." (PRISMA item P6)
* Study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were specified, but the rationale was not provided.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched." (PRISMA item P7)
* All information sources in the search and date last searched were described.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated." (PRISMA item P8)
* The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)." (PRISMA item P9)
* The process for selecting studies was stated.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators." (PRISMA item P10)
* The method of data extraction from reports and processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators were not described.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made." (PRISMA item P11)
* The variables for which data were sought were listed and defined.
* [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis." (PRISMA item P12)
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were described.
* [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)." (PRISMA item P13)
* The principal summary measures were stated.
* [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis." (PRISMA item P14)
* The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were described.
* [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)." (PRISMA item P15)
* The assessment of risk of bias across studies was not specified.
* [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified." (PRISMA item P16)
* The methods of additional analyses were not described.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram." (PRISMA item P17)
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were given, but the reasons for exclusions at each stage were not provided.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations." (PRISMA item P18)
* The characteristics for which data were extracted for each study were presented.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)." (PRISMA item P19)
* The data on risk of bias of each study were presented.
* [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot." (PRISMA item P20)
* The simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals were presented, but a forest plot was not provided.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency." (PRISMA item P21)
* The results of each meta-analysis were not presented.
* [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)." (PRISMA item P22)
* The results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence were not presented.
* [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)." (PRISMA item P23)
* The results of additional analyses were not given.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)." (PRISMA item P24)
* The main findings were summarized, but the strength of evidence for each main outcome was not considered.
* [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)." (PRISMA item P25)
* The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level were discussed.
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research." (PRISMA item P26)
* The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research were provided.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA item P27)
* The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were not described.
* [No]

109. Kunz 2013: Primary fascial closure versus staged closure with silo in patients with gastroschisis: A meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 1 1 1 NA 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 96.1%)

8 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 71.4%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "We reviewed Medline citations, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012. Articles were identified using the search term 'gastroschisis' and [(‘treatment outcome’ or ‘prognosis’) or randomized controlled trials]."
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Two independent reviewers identified relevant articles for final inclusion."
* Duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "We reviewed Medline citations, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012. Citations from DynaMed and other reviews were included. The search terms used were 'gastroschisis' and [(‘treatment outcome’ or ‘prognosis’) or randomized controlled trials]."
* A comprehensive literature search was performed using at least two electronic sources (Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and supplemented by other sources.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "Case reports, reviews, letters, abstracts only, non-English abstracts, and studies that did not address at least one of the outcomes of interest were identified and excluded from the meta-analysis."
* The status of publication was used as an inclusion criterion and reports were excluded based on their publication status.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
* A list of included studies was provided.
* [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
* The characteristics of the included studies were provided in an aggregated form.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using standard meta-analytic techniques.
* [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality were considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "In studies comparing primary closure to placement of a silo, rationale for selection of closure method differed and was categorized into three groups: 1) objective, based on randomization or temporal assignment due to shift in practice within the institution, 2) subjective, based on surgeon preference, or 3) silo placement after failed primary closure."
* The methods used to combine the findings of studies were appropriate.
* [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "There are no conflicts of interest to disclose."
* The conflict of interest was included.
* [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Primary Fascial Closure versus Staged Closure with Silo in Patients with Gastroschisis: A Meta-Analysis"
* The report was identified as a meta-analysis.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background/Purpose—Gastroschisis is the most common congenital abdominal wall defect. Despite advances in the surgical closure of gastroschisis, consensus is lacking as to which method results in the best patient outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes associated with primary fascial closure and staged repair with a silo in patients with gastroschisis."
* The abstract provided a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Gastroschisis is the most common abdominal wall defect in the newborn, and incidence is increasing worldwide, affecting 4-5/10,000 newborns (1, 2). Survival has dramatically improved to greater than 90% over the past 6 decades, due to improved techniques to close the abdominal wall defect and advances in neonatal care (3, 4, 5). Despite these advances, post-surgical care for gastroschisis remains challenging, and gastroschisis is the congenital defect with the longest ICU length of stay (6). The Centers for Disease Control and others report the mean hospital LOS for gastroschisis ranging from 35 to 41 days, with a mean hospital charge of $155,629 to $172,000 (6, 7). With a predicted 20% of the gross domestic product in the United States to be spent on health care by the year 2019 (8), resource intensive congenital defects such as gastroschisis represent a significant burden to health care systems and, as such, are an ideal target for cost savings. Cost and quality of care are further impacted by inefficient or variable delivery of care, for which clinical standardization may be a solution."
* The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes associated with primary fascial closure and staged repair with a silo in patients with gastroschisis."
* The explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) was provided.
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "The review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (Appendix 1)."
* The review protocol was not provided.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "We reviewed Medline citations between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012 and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews database through June 1, 2012. Citations from DynaMed and other reviews were included. The search terms used were 'gastroschisis' and [(‘treatment outcome’ or ‘prognosis’) or randomized controlled trials]. Reference lists from selected papers were further used to identify publications of interest. Retrieval was limited to studies of newborn infants (0--1 month), published in the English language. Case reports, reviews, letters, abstracts only, non-English abstracts, and studies that did not address at least one of the outcomes of interest were identified and excluded independently by two reviewers."
* The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were specified.
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "We reviewed Medline citations, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012. Citations from DynaMed and other reviews were included."
* All information sources in the search were described.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "The search terms used were 'gastroschisis' and [(‘treatment outcome’ or ‘prognosis’) or randomized controlled trials]."
* The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Two independent reviewers identified relevant articles for final inclusion. Data abstraction was conducted independently by the same two investigators from the studies that met inclusion criteria. A standard data collection form created by the authors was used to extract study information, including study design, patient characteristics, and reported patient outcomes. The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
* The process for selecting studies was stated.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Data abstraction was conducted independently by the same two investigators from the studies that met inclusion criteria. A standard data collection form created by the authors was used to extract study information, including study design, patient characteristics, and reported patient outcomes."
* The method of data extraction from reports was described.
* [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Extracted data were cross-referenced between reviewers for accuracy. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus."
* The variables for which data were sought were listed and defined.
* [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not specified.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "For each study, treatment effects were calculated using a fixed effect model to obtain weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes."
* The principal summary measures were stated.
* [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
* The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not specified.
* [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* The assessment of risk of bias across studies was not specified.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "In pre-specified subgroup analyses, we qualitatively compared estimated treatment effects based on the following factors, which represent variation in study design: 1) inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group; and 2) inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis, including atresia, volvulus, or perforation, in the analysis."
* The methods of additional analyses were described.
* [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "The literature search yielded 365 articles. Reviews, case reports, letters, and abstracts only (n=257) were excluded. After review of the remaining 108 abstracts and/or full text articles by two independent reviewers, studies that did not address gastroschisis repair methods and studies that did not address at least one of the outcomes of interest (n=88) were excluded. Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were given with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
* The characteristics for which data were extracted for each study were presented.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "The likelihood of risk of bias within studies was not assessed as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* The data on risk of bias of each study were not presented.
* [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "Estimates of weighted mean differences and odds ratios for individual studies are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively."
* The simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals were presented for each study.
* [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency (e.g., I2).

* "The likelihood of synthesis of results was not assessed as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* The results of each meta-analysis were not presented.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "The likelihood of risk of bias across studies was not assessed as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* The results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence were not presented.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "In pre-specified subgroup analyses, we qualitatively compared estimated treatment effects based on the following factors, which represent variation in study design: 1) inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group; and 2) inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis, including atresia, volvulus, or perforation, in the analysis."
* The results of additional analyses were given.
* [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "This meta-analysis demonstrates that in studies with less selection bias, silo closure is associated with better outcomes for patients with gastroschisis. The results also highlight the importance of assessing bias prior to drawing conclusions, as primary closure appears better when more biased studies are included in the analysis."
* The main findings were summarized including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "There are several limitations inherent in this meta-analysis. First, we identified the following three major variations in study design: 1) manner of selection of gastroschisis closure method, 2) inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and 3) inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis (including atresia, volvulus, and perforation). Such heterogeneity of study design and the inherent clinical variability of gastroschisis present challenges in interpreting and comparing studies to determine the best method to close a gastroschisis defect."
* The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level were discussed.
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Determining a superior method of closure would be a benefit to both the surgical and medical management of gastroschisis; this meta-analysis demonstrates that further well-designed studies are needed to gain an accurate picture of outcomes after different surgical interventions. The randomized controlled trial registered in January 2012 will be an important step toward answering this important question."
* The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research were provided.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "The Seattle Children’s Core for Biomedical Statistics is supported by the Center for Clinical and Translational Research at Seattle Children’s Research Institute and grant UL1RR025014 from the NIH National Center for Research Resources."
* The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were described.
* [Yes]

110. Landisch 2015: Observation versus prophylactic Ladd procedure for asymptomatic intestinal rotational abnormalities in heterotaxy syndrome: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 84.9%)

26 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 63.1%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "We performed a systematic review of publications describing IRA in pediatric HS patients from January 1993 to present." (Fulltext)
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Two independent researchers (R.L. and R.M.) performed the search, critically reviewed and extracted eligible articles." (Fulltext)
* Two independent data extractors were used and a consensus procedure for disagreements was in place.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "This study was performed according to guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6]. An online database search for all articles published between January 1993 and January 2014 on pediatric patients using the following key-words was performed: “heterotaxy”, “rotation”, “volvulus”, “Ladd pro-cedure”, “Ivemark”, “asplenia”, and “polysplenia”. Searches were repeated in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane library." (Fulltext)
* A comprehensive literature search was performed using at least two electronic sources, years and databases used were specified, key words and MESH terms were stated, and the search was supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc." (AMSTAR)
* The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was used as an inclusion criterion or if reports were excluded based on their publication status or language.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "See Fig. 1 for a flow diagram summary of the literature vetting process." (Fulltext)
* A list of included studies was provided in the form of a flow diagram.
* [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "Of all patients with HS, 27% (176/649) underwent Ladd procedure." (Fulltext)
* The characteristics of the included studies were provided in the form of a percentage of patients with HS who underwent Ladd procedure.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc." (AMSTAR)
* The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The Ladd procedure is not without significant morbidity and mortality in heterotaxy patients. Further prospective studies should investigate predictors of mesenteric width to spare the unnecessary morbidity of surgery in patients who are at low risk for volvulus." (Fulltext)
* The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality were considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.
* [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions." (AMSTAR)
* The text does not provide information on whether the methods used to combine the findings of studies were appropriate.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "Indicate “yes” if no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”". (AMSTAR)
* The text does not provide information on whether the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA)
* Potential sources of support were not clearly acknowledged in the systematic review or the included studies.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Observation versus prophylactic Ladd procedure for asymptomatic intestinal rotational abnormalities in heterotaxy syndrome: A systematic review" (Fulltext)
* The report was identified as a systematic review.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Abstract / Structured summary: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* A structured summary was not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Heterotaxy syndrome (HS), a consequence of aberrations in left-to-right positional signaling in early embryonic development, manifests as cardiac and visceral anatomic malpositioning. Forty percent to 90% of patients with HS also have intestinal rotational abnormalities (IRA)" (Fulltext)
* The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)." (PRISMA)
* An explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) was not provided.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Methods / Protocol and registration: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* A review protocol was not indicated or provided.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Methods / Eligibility criteria: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* Study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were not specified.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Methods / Information sources: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* All information sources in the search and date last searched were not described.
* [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "Methods / Search: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Methods / Study selection: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The process for selecting studies was not stated.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Methods / Data collection process: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators were not described.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Methods / Data items: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made were not listed and defined.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not described.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "Methods / Summary measures: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The principal summary measures were not stated.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "Methods / Synthesis of results: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not described.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* Any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was not specified.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Methods / Additional analyses: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The methods of additional analyses were not described.
* [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "Results / Study selection: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage were not provided.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "Results / Study characteristics: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The characteristics for which data were extracted and the citations were not provided.
* [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Results / Risk of bias within studies: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The data on risk of bias of each study and any outcome level assessment were not presented.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "Results / Results of individual studies: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The simple summary data for each intervention group and the effect estimates and confidence intervals were not presented.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Results / Synthesis of results: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency were not presented.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Results / Risk of bias across studies: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* Any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was not specified.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "Results / Additional analysis: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The results of additional analyses were not given.
* [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Discussion / Summary of evidence: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and their relevance to key groups were not summarized.
* [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "Discussion / Limitations: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level were not discussed.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Discussion / Conclusions: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* A general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research were not provided.
* [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Funding: Not provided in the full text." (Fulltext)
* The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were not described.
* [No]

111. Lane 2010: Paediatric sutureless circumcision: a systematic literature review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA 0


LLM response

2 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

48 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 99.9%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. "Circumcision can be undertaken using a variety of techniques" [...] " Here we review the literature on recent advances that have been made in paediatric circumcision" [...] "" (Fulltext, Introduction)

Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are established before the conduct of the review.

Response: [Yes]

A2. "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place" [...] " Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the number of data extractors or the consensus procedure.

Response: [No]

A3. "At least two electronic sources should be searched" [...] " Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary)." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text mentions searching "all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies)" (Fulltext, Methods/Information sources), but does not provide specific details on the number of electronic sources or the search strategy.

Response: [NA]

A4. "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type" [...] " Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.”" (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text mentions searching for "all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies)" (Fulltext, Methods/Information sources), but does not provide specific details on the inclusion of grey literature.

Response: [NA]

A5. "A list of studies (included and excluded) provided" [...] " Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text provides a list of included studies (Fulltext, Results/Study characteristics), but does not provide a list of excluded studies.

Response: [No]

A6. "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes" [...] " Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text provides a table with the characteristics of the included studies (Fulltext, Results/Study characteristics), meeting this criterion.

Response: [Yes]

A7. "‘A priori’ methods of assessment should be provided" [...] " Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable)." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.

Response: [No]

A8. "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations" [...] " Note: Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

A9. "The methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate" [...] " Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

A10. "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)" [...] " Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

A11. "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies" [...] " Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies." (AMSTAR)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of support for the systematic review or the included studies.

Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. "Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text identifies itself as a systematic literature review (Fulltext, Abstract).

Response: [Yes]

P2. "Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text provides a structured abstract, including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, synthesis methods, results, and conclusions (Fulltext, Abstract).

Response: [Yes]

P3. "Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known (Fulltext, Introduction).

Response: [Yes]

P4. "Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed, including participants, interventions, and outcomes (Fulltext, Introduction).

Response: [Yes]

P5. "Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the existence of a review protocol or registration.

Response: [No]

P6. "Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the study characteristics or report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.

Response: [No]

P7. "Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text describes the information sources and the date last searched (Fulltext, Methods/Information sources).

Response: [Yes]

P8. "Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for any database.

Response: [No]

P9. "State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text describes the process for selecting studies (Fulltext, Methods/Study selection).

Response: [Yes]

P10. "Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the method of data extraction or processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

Response: [No]

P11. "List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought or assumptions and simplifications made.

Response: [No]

P12. "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.

Response: [No]

P13. "State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P14. "Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P15. "Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P16. "Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform additional analyses, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P17. "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text provides the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but does not provide a flow diagram (Fulltext, Results/Study selection).

Response: [No]

P18. "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text provides the characteristics of the included studies (Fulltext, Results/Study characteristics).

Response: [Yes]

P19. "Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the risk of bias of each study.

Response: [No]

P20. "For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P21. "Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P22. "Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform a meta-analysis, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P23. "Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16])." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not perform additional analyses, making it impossible to evaluate this criterion.

Response: [NA]

P24. "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text summarizes the main findings (Fulltext, Discussion/Summary of evidence).

Response: [Yes]

P25. "Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text discusses limitations at study and outcome level (Fulltext, Discussion/Limitations).

Response: [Yes]

P26. "Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research (Fulltext, Discussion/Conclusions).

Response: [Yes]

P27. "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA)

Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.

Response: [No]

112. Lansdale 2010: Neonatal Endosurgical Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1: [Yes], the authors state that the review methods were established prior to the performance of the review.

A2: [Yes], the authors state that two or more independent reviewers were used for each stage of the review process.

A3: [Yes], the authors state that a comprehensive literature search was performed.

A4: [Yes], the authors state that the inclusion criteria were established prior to the performance of the review.

A5: [Yes], the authors state that two or more independent reviewers were used to determine study eligibility.

A6: [Yes], the authors state that a list of studies (including reasons for exclusion) was provided.

A7: [Yes], the authors state that the characteristics of the included studies were described in detail.

A8: [Yes], the authors state that the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and described.

A9: [Yes], the authors state that the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies were described in detail.

A10: [Yes], the authors state that the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.

A11: [Yes], the authors state that the conflict of interest statements of the included studies were obtained and assessed.

P1: [Yes], the authors provide a structured summary of the review.

P2: [Yes], the authors provide the rationale for the review.

P3: [Yes], the authors provide the objectives of the review.

P4: [Yes], the authors provide the inclusion criteria for the review.

P5: [Yes], the authors provide the methods used for study identification, screening, selection, and data extraction.

P6: [Yes], the authors provide the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.

P7: [Yes], the authors provide the methods used for combining study results.

P8: [Yes], the authors provide the methods used for assessing the risk of bias across studies.

P9: [Yes], the authors provide the results of the search and the study inclusion criteria.

P10: [Yes], the authors provide the characteristics of the included studies.

P11: [Yes], the authors provide the results of the risk of bias assessment of individual studies.

P12: [Yes], the authors provide the results of the risk of bias assessment across studies.

P13: [Yes], the authors provide the results of the meta-analysis.

P14: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the authors provide a discussion of the results in the context of other studies and the clinical relevance of the findings.

P18: [Yes], the authors provide a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review.

P19: [Yes], the authors provide a summary of the evidence.

P20: [Yes], the authors provide a conclusion based on the evidence.

P21: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the authors provide a conflict of interest statement.

P25: [Yes], the authors provide a funding statement.

P26: [Yes], the authors provide a statement about the availability of data and materials.

P27: [Yes], the authors provide a statement about the role of the funder in the design of the study, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and writing of the manuscript.

113. Lee 2010: Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 1


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.3%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 34.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children." (Fulltext)
* The research question is clearly stated in the full text, but there is no explicit mention of an 'a priori' design or a protocol.
* [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions" [...] "" (Fulltext)
* The full text does not provide information on duplicate study selection and data extraction, nor does it mention a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well. Appendicitis and antibiotics were selected as search terms, and the results were further narrowed as they related to the pediatric population." (Fulltext)
* The full text mentions the use of multiple electronic databases and search terms, but it does not provide the specific search strategy or the years covered.
* [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions" [...] "" (Fulltext)
* The full text does not provide information on the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature or other publication types.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "Overall, 126 studies were selected and reviewed. However, we only referenced those studies with the highest class data that were most relevant to answering the questions listed above." (Fulltext)
* The full text mentions that 126 studies were selected and reviewed, but it does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "In patients with nonperforated appendicitis, there is strong evidence that children should receive preoperative broad-spectrum antibiotics" [...] "" (Fulltext)
* The full text provides some information on the characteristics of the included studies, but it does not provide a comprehensive table or aggregated form of the data.
* [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided.

* "We classified each study according to the classes of evidence and rating of evidence as outlined in Fig. 1 [2]." (Fulltext)
* The full text mentions the use of classes of evidence and rating of evidence, but it does not provide a detailed description of the 'a priori' methods of assessment.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

* "Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis." (Fulltext)
* The full text formulates conclusions based on the included studies, but it does not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the studies was used in this process.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?

* "Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose." (Fulltext)
* The full text explicitly states the absence of conflicts of interest.
* [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review" (Title)
* The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* The abstract provides information on the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, results, and conclusions.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Despite the widespread prevalence of the disease, there is little consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis. This document represents a systematic review of the current literature of antibiotic therapy for appendicitis in the pediatric population." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides an explicit statement of the research question, but it does not explicitly mention the PICOS elements.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Not mentioned in the full text.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well. Appendicitis and antibiotics were selected as search terms, and the results were further narrowed as they related to the pediatric population." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides some information on the eligibility criteria, but it does not provide a comprehensive list of study characteristics and report characteristics.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides information on the databases used in the search, but it does not mention the dates of coverage or contact with study authors.
* [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions" [...] "" (Fulltext)
* The full text provides some information on the study selection process, but it does not explicitly state the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "We classified each study according to the classes of evidence and rating of evidence as outlined in Fig. 1 [2]." (Fulltext)
* The full text mentions the use of classes of evidence and rating of evidence, but it does not provide a detailed description of the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ).

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Not applicable, as the full text does not mention the use of quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides a summary of the main findings, but it does not explicitly state the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "The use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children is an area of ongoing research and debate. This systematic review provides evidence-based guidance for the use of antibiotics in the treatment of appendicitis in children." (Fulltext)
* The full text provides conclusions and implications for future research, but it does not explicitly provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
* [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Not provided in the full text.
* [No]

114. LeeVan 2016: Management of pediatric blunt renal trauma

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 0 0 NA 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

18 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.2%)

5 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 71.6%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "This is a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. The following search was performed in each of the three databases: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000."
* Reasoning: The search strategy was pre-determined and published in the review, indicating an 'a priori' design.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
* Reasoning: The review does not explicitly state that there were two independent data extractors, but it does mention that 308 titles and abstracts were reduced to 32 articles, implying some level of selection and extraction.
* Response: [NA]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes.” Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary.

* Quote: "This is a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. The following search was performed in each of the three databases: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000."
* Reasoning: The review searched three electronic databases and limited the search to publications after January 1, 2000.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose.

* Quote: "Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000. Inclusion criteria were (1) original research articles regarding management of pediatric blunt renal trauma, (2) involvement of cases of high-grade renal (Grades IV and V) trauma, and (3) more than one patient presented per study. Literature reviews and meta-analyses were excluded."
* Reasoning: The review limited the search to publications after January 1, 2000 and excluded literature reviews and meta-analyses, but did not explicitly state that they searched for grey literature.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
* Reasoning: The review does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "Twenty-seven studies reported information specific to patients with Grade IV injury. In these studies, 0% to 38.5% of their populations required immediate operative intervention upon entry to the hospital for hemodynamic instability, surgeon preference, or institutional guidelines."
* Reasoning: The review provides characteristics of the included studies in the text, but not in an aggregated form such as a table.
* Response: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (Fig. 1)."
* Reasoning: The review used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to assess the scientific quality of the included studies.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "The literature supports application of conservative management protocols to high-grade blunt pediatric renal trauma. Criteria for early operative intervention are not well understood. At this time, emergent operative intervention only for hemody-namic instability is recommended. Minimally invasive interventions including angioembolization, stenting, and percutaneous drainage should be used when indicated. Short- and long-term outcomes are favorable when using conservative manage-ment approaches to Grade IV and V renal injuries. Further studies including prospective studies and randomized control trials are necessary. Cost analyses of current treatment protocols are also necessary to guide efficient management strategies."
* Reasoning: The review used the results of the scientific quality assessment to formulate conclusions and make recommendations.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review does not mention any sources of funding or support."
* Reasoning: The review does not mention any sources of funding or support.
* Response: [NA]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Management of pediatric blunt renal trauma: A systematic review"
* Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review does not provide an abstract.
* Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Blunt trauma remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population. The use of conservative management for blunt renal trauma is widely accepted in adult urologic trauma literature and is now increasingly accepted for use in the pediatric patient population. This strategy aims to preserve renal units by using careful monitoring and minimally invasive techniques such as percutaneous drainage, endourologic stenting, and angioembolization. Multiple studies and meta-analysis of these data support conservative management protocols in patients with low-grade injuries; however, consensus regarding management of high-grade injuries has not been achieved. Furthermore, many questions remain regarding what an opti-mal protocol for conservative management should include, what the threshold for implementation of operative management should be, and what is the ultimate impact of conservative management on the patient and health care system. Even the definition of ‘‘conservative management’’ varies throughout the literature, with minimally invasive procedures being variably defined as conservative or operative/interventional management. The definition of conservative management in this article includes minimally invasive procedures such as percutaneous drainage, stent placement, and angioembolization as well as observation. Operative intervention will refer to laparotomy and more extensive renal exploration or resection. As more studies on patients with high-grade renal trauma emerge, it is important to understand differences between Grade IV and Grade V injury that may impact treatment regimens."
* Reasoning: The review provides a clear rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "This study aimed to review current practices in pediatric blunt renal trauma management and to highlight current practices in conservative protocols, success rates of conservative management strategies, as well as short- and long-term outcomes of blunt renal trauma management."
* Reasoning: The review provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review does not mention a review protocol or registration information.
* Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Inclusion criteria were (1) original research articles regarding management of pediatric blunt renal trauma, (2) involvement of cases of high-grade renal (Grades IV and V) trauma, and (3) more than one patient presented per study. Literature reviews and meta-analyses were excluded as well as all articles not written in English or written before the year 2000."
* Reasoning: The review specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "A search of all original research studies was conducted using PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. The following search was performed in PubMed: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000. Inclusion criteria were (1) original research articles regarding management of pediatric blunt renal trauma, (2) involvement of cases of high-grade renal (Grades IV and V) trauma, and (3) more than one patient presented per study. Literature reviews and meta-analyses were excluded as well as all articles not written in English or written before the year 2000."
* Reasoning: The review describes all information sources in the search and date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "The following search was performed in PubMed: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000."
* Reasoning: The review presents the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.
* Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
* Reasoning: The review states the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review does not mention the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review does not mention the variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (Fig. 1)."
* Reasoning: The review describes methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
* Reasoning: The review gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Twenty-seven studies reported information specific to patients with Grade IV injury. In these studies, 0% to 38.5% of their populations required immediate operative intervention upon entry to the hospital for hemodynamic instability, surgeon preference, or institutional guidelines."
* Reasoning: The review presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (Fig. 1)."
* Reasoning: The review presents data on risk of bias of each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: "Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "The literature supports application of conservative management protocols to high-grade blunt pediatric renal trauma. Criteria for early operative intervention are not well understood. At this time, emergent operative intervention only for hemody-namic instability is recommended. Minimally invasive interventions including angioembolization, stenting, and percutaneous drainage should be used when indicated. Short- and long-term outcomes are favorable when using conservative manage-ment approaches to Grade IV and V renal injuries. Further studies including prospective studies and randomized control trials are necessary. Cost analyses of current treatment protocols are also necessary to guide efficient management strategies."
* Reasoning: The review summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The primary limitation to the analysis is the small size and the retrospective nature of the available literature."
* Reasoning: The review discusses limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Based on the analysis of the available literature, we recommend implementation of conservative management protocols to treat high-grade blunt pediatric renal trauma. It is not recommended that protocols routinely require bed rest, serial imaging, and ICU admission, although prospective comparative data are lacking to support specific management strategies. Early operative intervention should be implemented for hemodynamic instability. Intervention due to CT findings alone is not recommended. Minimally invasive interventions including angioembolization, stenting, and percutaneous drainage should be used when indicated and do not qualify as a failure of conservative therapy. Short- and long-term outcomes are favorable when using conservative manage-ment approaches to high-grade renal injuries. Further studies including prospective, randomized studies and cost-benefit analyses are essential to develop a comprehensive, standard-ized approach to the management of pediatric renal trauma, which will improve outcomes and maximize resource use."
* Reasoning: The review provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "Not provided in the full text."
* Reasoning: The review does not mention sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
* Response: [No]

115. Liang 2011: Lymphatic Sparing Versus Lymphatic Non-Sparing Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 50.6%)

18 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 61%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and described in the published review." [Yes]

A2: "The review methods were appropriate to the review type." [Yes]

A3: "The review methods were applied consistently in the review." [Yes]

A4: "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

A5: "The primary studies were selected in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A6: "The primary studies were assessed for quality in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A7: "The methods used for combining the findings of studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A8: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A9: "The review methods were appropriate to the review type." [NA]

A10: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

A11: "The review was conducted by individuals who had no significant conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P1: "The review question was stated." [Yes]

P2: "The inclusion criteria were stated." [Yes]

P3: "The search strategy was described." [Yes]

P4: "The list of studies included in the review was provided." [Yes]

P5: "The characteristics of the included studies were described." [Yes]

P6: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and described." [Yes]

P7: "The results of the review were provided in sufficient detail and were accompanied by a summary." [Yes]

P8: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

P9: "The review was conducted by individuals who had no significant conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P10: "The primary studies were selected in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

P11: "The primary studies were assessed for quality in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

P12: "The methods used for combining the findings of studies were appropriate." [NA]

P13: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

P14: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and described in the published review." [NA]

P15: "The review methods were appropriate to the review type." [NA]

P16: "The review methods were applied consistently in the review." [NA]

P17: "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [NA]

P18: "The primary studies were selected using a reproducible process." [Yes]

P19: "The primary studies were assessed for quality using a reproducible process." [Yes]

P20: "The review methods were appropriate to the review type." [NA]

P21: "The review methods were applied consistently in the review." [NA]

P22: "The review methods were described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [NA]

P23: "The review was conducted by individuals who had no significant conflicts of interest." [NA]

P24: "The primary studies were selected in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

P25: "The primary studies were assessed for quality in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

P26: "The methods used for combining the findings of studies were appropriate." [NA]

P27: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

116. Lishuang 2015: Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 53.8%)

17 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 52.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review question was clearly defined and appropriate for a systematic review." [Yes]

A2. "The inclusion criteria were appropriate and clearly defined." [Yes]

A3. "The search strategy was comprehensive and appropriate for the review question." [Yes]

A4. "The study selection process was described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the potential for selection bias." [Yes]

A5. "The study characteristics were described in sufficient detail to allow assessment of the potential for bias in the review results." [Yes]

A6. "The quality assessment of individual studies was conducted using validated methods appropriate for the study design." [Yes]

A7. "The methods used for statistical combination of results were appropriate and clearly described." [Yes]

A8. "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed using appropriate methods." [NA]

A9. "The methods used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence were appropriate and clearly described." [Yes]

A10. "The conclusions were based on the results of the review and were supported by the data." [Yes]

A11. "The review was reproducible and the results could be understood and interpreted without access to the original data." [Yes]

P1. "The review question and inclusion criteria were specified in the introduction." [Yes]

P2. "The methods used to identify, select, extract, and assess the studies were described in detail." [Yes]

P3. "The study characteristics were described in detail." [Yes]

P4. "The results of the individual studies were described in detail." [Yes]

P5. "The methods used for statistical combination of results were described in detail." [Yes]

P6. "The results of the synthesis were described in detail." [Yes]

P7. "The limitations of the synthesis were discussed." [Yes]

P8. "The conclusions were based on the results of the synthesis." [Yes]

P9. "The review was registered in a suitable registry." [Yes]

P10. "The protocol was published before the review commenced." [Yes]

P11. "The review was conducted by at least two people." [Yes]

P12. "The search strategy was described in detail." [Yes]

P13. "The inclusion and exclusion criteria were described in detail." [Yes]

P14. "The list of studies included in the review, the reasons for exclusion, and details about studies awaiting assessment were provided." [Yes]

P15. "The methods used for assessing risk of bias (quality) in individual studies were described in detail." [Yes]

P16. "The results of the risk of bias (quality) assessments of individual studies were reported in detail." [Yes]

P17. "The methods used for combining study results were described in detail." [Yes]

P18. "The results of the synthesis were reported in detail." [Yes]

P19. "The limitations of the synthesis were discussed." [Yes]

P20. "The conclusions were based on the results of the synthesis." [Yes]

P21. "The review was reproducible." [Yes]

P22. "The results of the review were reported in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P23. "The conclusions were supported by the data." [Yes]

P24. "The review was free of conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P25. "The review was free of conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P26. "The review was free of conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P27. "The review was free of conflicts of interest." [Yes]

117. Livingston 2015: Fundoplication and gastrostomy versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 42.7%)

7 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 44.3%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The review was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of experts in pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric surgery, and pediatric radiology."
2. The review was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of experts in pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric surgery, and pediatric radiology.
3. [Yes]

A2:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol that was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511)."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol that was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511).
3. [Yes]

A3:
1. "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

A4:
1. "The review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions."
2. The review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
3. [No]

A5:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified search strategy that was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511)."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified search strategy that was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511).
3. [Yes]

A6:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of inclusion and exclusion criteria."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
3. [Yes]

A7:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of data items to extract."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of data items to extract.
3. [Yes]

A8:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
3. [Yes]

A9:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for combining study results."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for combining study results.
3. [Yes]

A10:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the quality of the evidence."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the quality of the evidence.
3. [Yes]

A11:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing publication bias."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing publication bias.
3. [No]

P1:
1. "The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511)."
2. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088511).
3. [Yes]

P2:
1. "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

P3:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified search strategy."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified search strategy.
3. [Yes]

P4:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of inclusion and exclusion criteria."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
3. [Yes]

P5:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of data items to extract."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified list of data items to extract.
3. [Yes]

P6:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
3. [Yes]

P7:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for combining study results."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for combining study results.
3. [Yes]

P8:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the quality of the evidence."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the quality of the evidence.
3. [Yes]

P9:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing publication bias."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing publication bias.
3. [No]

P10:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of risk of bias on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of risk of bias on the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P11:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P12:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P13:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P14:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P15:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P16:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P17:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P18:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P19:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P20:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P21:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P22:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P23:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P24:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P25:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P26:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

P27:
1. "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review."
2. The review was conducted according to a pre-specified method for assessing the impact of the review methods on the results of the review.
3. [NA]

118. Mauritz 2013: Complete Versus Partial Fundoplication in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 1 1 0 1 1 NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.5%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement."
* Reasoning: The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement, which implies that an 'a priori' design was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following predefined criteria: " [...] "Studies were excluded from analysis if they allocated patients to either surgical technique based on patient characteristics, if they did not meet the inclusion criteria, or if primary outcome parameters of interest were not reported. In case of multiple studies reporting on an overlapping population, only the study with the largest patient population was included."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that articles were independently assessed for eligibility, implying that there was duplicate study selection. However, it does not explicitly state that there was duplicate data extraction.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "Using predefined search terms PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched until March 16, 2011 to identify all articles comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD. For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (child*[Title/Abstract] OR infant*[Title/Abstract] OR adolescent*[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR paediatric*[Title/Abstract]) AND (nissen[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR anti-reflux*[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux*[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[MeSH Terms]) AND gastroesophageal reflux[MeSH Terms]. The same search strategy was used in EMBASE (replacing “[Title/Abstract]” by; “ti,ab” and “[MeSH Terms]” by/exp). Human, child and adolescent were used as search limits in both databases. In addition, the Cochrane Library was manually searched."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that at least two electronic sources were searched (PubMed and EMBASE) and the Cochrane Library was manually searched. The search strategy is provided, including years and databases used, and keywords and MeSH terms were stated.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "Studies were excluded from analysis if they allocated patients to either surgical technique based on patient characteristics, if they did not meet the inclusion criteria, or if primary outcome parameters of interest were not reported. In case of multiple studies reporting on an overlapping population, only the study with the largest patient population was included."
* Reasoning: The review does not explicitly state that they searched for grey literature or reports regardless of their publication type.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "In total, eight original studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected."
* Reasoning: The review provides a list of the eight studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
* Response: [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "Included studies were published between 1994 and 2011 and reported on a total of 1 183 (588 complete and 595 partial fundoplications) children. Most studies only reported data on short-term follow-up. We detected a wide range in follow-up duration (0--192 months) and age at time of surgical intervention (7 days--21 years) between the included studies."
* Reasoning: The review provides information on the characteristics of the included studies, including the number of studies, the number of participants, and the range of follow-up duration and age at time of surgical intervention.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Using predefined criteria, two authors (F.M. and B.B) included studies and assessed their methodological quality and risk of bias according to the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment. However, it does not provide the results of this assessment.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "The overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor. All except one of the included studies used a retrospective cohort design. Only Kubiak et al. randomly allocated patients to either complete or partial fundoplication. Three studies performed investigation techniques and/or questionnaires according to a predefined study protocol and only five studies reported data on the number of patients lost to follow-up. The potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that the overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor and provides information on the potential threats to validity.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "Studies were weighted on sample size and the number of events. Trials with zero events in one arm were included in the analysis by adding a continuity correction of 0.5 to all cells in the two-by-two table for that study. Trials with zero events in both arms were excluded from the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using Higgins χ2 test (χ2 p value>0.1) and inconsistency in study effects was quantified by I2 values (I2 >50 %). Funnel plots were used to help identify the presence of publication or other types of bias."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that studies were weighted on sample size and the number of events, and that heterogeneity was calculated using Higgins χ2 test and inconsistency in study effects was quantified by I2 values.
* Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Funnel plots were used to help identify the presence of publication or other types of bias."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that funnel plots were used to help identify the presence of publication or other types of bias.
* Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that funding should be described for the systematic review and other support, but it does not provide information on the sources of funding or support for the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Complete fundoplication (Nissen) has long been accepted as the gold standard surgical procedure in children with therapy-resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, increasingly more evidence has become available for partial fundoplication as an alternative. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus partial fundoplication in children with therapy-resistant GERD."
* Reasoning: The review identifies itself as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract Complete fundoplication (Nissen) has long been accepted as the gold standard surgical procedure in children with therapy-resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, increasingly more evidence has become available for partial fundoplication as an alternative. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus partial fundoplication in children with therapy-resistant GERD. PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched according to the PRISMA statement. Results were pooled in meta-analyses and expressed as risk ratios (RRs). In total, eight original trials comparing complete to partial fundoplication were identified. Seven of these studies had a retrospective study design. Short-term (RR 0.64; p=0.28) and long-term (RR 0.85; p=0.42) postoperative reflux control was similar for complete and partial fundoplication. Complete fundoplication required significantly more endoscopic dilatations for severe dysphagia (RR 7.26; p=0.007) than partial fundoplication. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that reflux control is similar after both complete and partial fundoplication, while partial fundoplication significantly reduces the number of dilatations to treat severe dysphagia. However, because of the lack of a well-designed study, we have to be cautious in making definitive conclusions. To decide which type of fundoplication is the best practice in pediatric GERD patients, more randomized controlled trials comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD are warranted."
* Reasoning: The review provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Complete fundoplication (Nissen) has long been accepted as the gold standard surgical procedure in children with therapy-resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, increasingly more evidence has become available for partial fundoplication as an alternative. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus partial fundoplication in children with therapy-resistant GERD."
* Reasoning: The review describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus partial fundoplication in children with therapy-resistant GERD."
* Reasoning: The review provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that it was conducted according to the PRISMA statement, but it does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists or where it can be accessed.
* Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following predefined criteria: " [...] "Studies were excluded from analysis if they allocated patients to either surgical technique based on patient characteristics, if they did not meet the inclusion criteria, or if primary outcome parameters of interest were not reported. In case of multiple studies reporting on an overlapping population, only the study with the largest patient population was included."
* Reasoning: The review specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "Using predefined search terms PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched until March 16, 2011 to identify all articles comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD. For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (child*[Title/Abstract] OR infant*[Title/Abstract] OR adolescent*[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR paediatric*[Title/Abstract]) AND (nissen[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR anti-reflux*[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux*[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[MeSH Terms]) AND gastroesophageal reflux[MeSH Terms]. The same search strategy was used in EMBASE (replacing “[Title/Abstract]” by; “ti,ab” and “[MeSH Terms]” by/exp). Human, child and adolescent were used as search limits in both databases. In addition, the Cochrane Library was manually searched."
* Reasoning: The review describes all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "Using predefined search terms PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched until March 16, 2011 to identify all articles comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD. For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (child*[Title/Abstract] OR infant*[Title/Abstract] OR adolescent*[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR paediatric*[Title/Abstract]) AND (nissen[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR anti-reflux*[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux*[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[MeSH Terms]) AND gastroesophageal reflux[MeSH Terms]. The same search strategy was used in EMBASE (replacing “[Title/Abstract]” by; “ti,ab” and “[MeSH Terms]” by/exp). Human, child and adolescent were used as search limits in both databases. In addition, the Cochrane Library was manually searched."
* Reasoning: The review presents the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.
* Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "In total, eight original studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected."
* Reasoning: The review states the process for selecting studies, including screening, eligibility, and included in the systematic review. However, it does not explicitly state whether the studies were included in the meta-analysis.
* Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Using predefined criteria, two authors (F.M. and B.B) included studies and assessed their methodological quality and risk of bias according to the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that the methodological quality and risk of bias of the individual studies were assessed using the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment. However, it does not provide the results of this assessment or specify how this information is to be used in data synthesis.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Results were pooled in meta-analyses and expressed as risk ratios (RRs)."
* Reasoning: The review states the principal summary measures.
* Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Studies were weighted on sample size and the number of events. Trials with zero events in one arm were included in the analysis by adding a continuity correction of 0.5 to all cells in the two-by-two table for that study. Trials with zero events in both arms were excluded from the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using Higgins χ2 test (χ2 p value>0.1) and inconsistency in study effects was quantified by I2 values (I2 >50 %)."
* Reasoning: The review describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Funnel plots were used to help identify the presence of publication or other types of bias."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that an assessment of risk of bias across studies was done using funnel plots.
* Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review does not provide information on methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "In total, 939 potentially relevant publications were identified. After title/abstract and full-text screening we selected eight original studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria."
* Reasoning: The review gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Included studies were published between 1994 and 2011 and reported on a total of 1 183 (588 complete and 595 partial fundoplications) children. Most studies only reported data on short-term follow-up. We detected a wide range in follow-up duration (0--192 months) and age at time of surgical intervention (7 days--21 years) between the included studies."
* Reasoning: The review presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study, including study size, PICOS, and follow-up period.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "The overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor. All except one of the included studies used a retrospective cohort design. Only Kubiak et al. randomly allocated patients to either complete or partial fundoplication. Three studies performed investigation techniques and/or questionnaires according to a predefined study protocol and only five studies reported data on the number of patients lost to follow-up. The potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The review presents data on risk of bias of each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "In total, eight original studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Seven of these studies had a retrospective study design. Short-term (RR 0.64; p=0.28) and long-term (RR 0.85; p=0.42) postoperative reflux control was similar for complete and partial fundoplication. Complete fundoplication required significantly more endoscopic dilatations for severe dysphagia (RR 7.26; p=0.007) than partial fundoplication."
* Reasoning: The review presents simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study. However, it does not provide a forest plot.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "Studies were weighted on sample size and the number of events. Trials with zero events in one arm were included in the analysis by adding a continuity correction of 0.5 to all cells in the two-by-two table for that study. Trials with zero events in both arms were excluded from the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using Higgins χ2 test (χ2 p value>0.1) and inconsistency in study effects was quantified by I2 values (I2 >50 %)."
* Reasoning: The review presents results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Funnel plots were used to help identify the presence of publication or other types of bias."
* Reasoning: The review mentions that results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies were presented using funnel plots.
* Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review does not provide information on results of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that reflux control is similar after both complete and partial fundoplication, while partial fundoplication significantly reduces the number of dilatations to treat severe dysphagia. However, because of the lack of a well-designed study, we have to be cautious in making definitive conclusions. To decide which type of fundoplication is the best practice in pediatric GERD patients, more randomized controlled trials comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD are warranted."
* Reasoning: The review summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considers their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor. All except one of the included studies used a retrospective cohort design. Only Kubiak et al. randomly allocated patients to either complete or partial fundoplication. Three studies performed investigation techniques and/or questionnaires according to a predefined study protocol and only five studies reported data on the number of patients lost to follow-up. The potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The review discusses limitations at study and outcome level, including risk of bias.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that reflux control is similar after both complete and partial fundoplication, while partial fundoplication significantly reduces the number of dilatations to treat severe dysphagia. However, because of the lack of a well-designed study, we have to be cautious in making definitive conclusions. To decide which type of fundoplication is the best practice in pediatric GERD patients, more randomized controlled trials comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD are warranted."
* Reasoning: The review provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support or the role of funders for the systematic review.
* Response: [NA]

119. Mauritz 2011: The Effects and Efficacy of Antireflux Surgery in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA 0


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of pediatric ARS and its effects on gastroesophageal function, as measured by gastroesophageal function tests. This is the first systematic review comprising only prospective, longitudinal studies, minimizing the risk of bias." (lines 10-12)
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* "The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were reviewed by two independent authors (WS, MH) according to the MOOSE criteria." (lines 141-142)
* Two independent authors reviewed the titles and abstracts of all identified studies.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* "Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for prospective studies reporting on ARS in children with GERD." (lines 132-133)
* The search strategy included at least two electronic sources.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type." (lines 132-133)
* The review did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* "In total, 17 eligible studies were identified, reporting on a total of 1,280 children." (lines 150-151)
* A list of included studies was provided.
* [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* "Most studies only presented very short-term follow-up; however, a wide range in follow-up duration was present (1-96 months). Age at time of surgical intervention varied widely between the included studies from 0.25 to 20 years (Table 1)." (lines 152-154)
* The characteristics of the included studies were provided.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* "All potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 2." (lines 160-161)
* The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented.
* [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* "However, these conclusions are bound by the lack of high-quality prospective studies on pediatric ARS." (lines 186-187)
* The scientific quality of the included studies was considered in formulating conclusions.
* [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* "Department of Pediatric Surgery, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands" (lines 175-176)
* The conflict of interest was not clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "REVIEW ARTICLE The Effects and Efficacy of Antireflux Surgery in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review" (lines 9-11)
* The report was identified as a systematic review.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background Antireflux surgery (ARS) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequently performed major operations in children. Many studies have described the results of ARS in children, however, with a wide difference in outcome. This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of pediatric ARS and its effects on gastroesophageal function, as measured by gastroesophageal function tests. This is the first systematic review comprising only prospective, longitudinal studies, minimizing the risk of bias." (lines 10-18)
* A structured summary was provided.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Gastroeophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, affecting 7-20% of the pediatric population. Most symptomatic children respond well to medical treatment. However, when medical treatment fails and reflux symptoms persist, antireflux surgery (ARS) may be considered. ARS is one of the most frequently performed major operations in children, and over the last decades, numerous studies have been published on this subject. The efficacy of ARS and the relationship between ARS and gastroesophageal (GE) function in children is difficult to deduce from these publications, since most studies are underpowered, retrospective, and have heterogeneous study designs, as well as a heterogeneous pediatric patient population." (lines 20-30)
* The rationale for the review was described.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "In order to provide the best evidence on the efficacy of pediatric ARS, this article aims to systematically review all prospective, longitudinal studies, and random-ized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, this review aims to study the effects of ARS on GE function in children, as measured by pre- and postoperative assessment tests." (lines 31-35)
* The objectives were explicitly stated.
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Not reported.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Using predefined search terms, PubMed (from 1960), Embase (from 1980), and the Cochrane library (issue 11, 2010) were systematically searched for all articles published until November 10, 2010. For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR nissen[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR boerema[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux surgery[Title/Abstract]) AND (child[Title/Abstract] OR children[Title/Abstract] OR infant[Title/Abstract] OR infants[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric[Title/Abstract] OR pediatrics[Title/Abstract]). The same search strategy was used in EMBASE (replacing “[TIAB]” by “:ti,ab”). In the Cochrane library, the search was manually conducted." (lines 131-140)
* The eligibility criteria were specified.
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for prospective studies reporting on ARS in children with GERD." (lines 132-133)
* The information sources were described.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Not reported.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were reviewed by two independent authors (WS, MH) according to the MOOSE criteria. Full publications were obtained for articles that appeared potentially relevant. References in these selected articles were also screened for cross-reference." (lines 141-145)
* The process for selecting studies was stated.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "The following data were extracted from each selected article: Study design, study population, surgical method, outcome assessment techniques, duration of follow-up, and study outcomes of interest." (lines 146-149)
* The data collection process was described.
* [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Not reported.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "All potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 2." (lines 160-161)
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were described.
* [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Not reported.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Not reported.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "In total, 1,260 articles were identified and screened. Of these, 17 original prospective studies that met our criteria were selected for inclusion." (lines 150-152)
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were given.
* [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "Most studies only presented very short-term follow-up; however, a wide range in follow-up duration was present (1-96 months). Age at time of surgical intervention varied widely between the included studies from 0.25 to 20 years (Table 1)." (lines 152-154)
* The study characteristics were presented.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "All potential threats to validity are summarized in Table 2." (lines 160-161)
* The risk of bias within studies was presented.
* [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Not reported.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Not reported.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "In this systematic review, success of pediatric ARS will be defined as complete relief of reflux symptoms." (lines 149-150)
* The main findings were summarized.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "However, these conclusions are bound by the lack of high-quality prospective studies on pediatric ARS." (lines 186-187)
* The limitations were discussed.
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence on the efficacy of pediatric ARS, this article aims to systematically review all prospective, longitudinal studies, and random-ized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, this review aims to study the effects of ARS on GE function in children, as measured by pre- and postoperative assessment tests." (lines 31-35)
* The conclusions were provided.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Not reported.
* [No]

120. Mei 2011: Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1


LLM response

13 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 53.3%)

25 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 59%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review methods should be specified in the methods section." [Yes]

A2. "The inclusion criteria for the review should be specified." [Yes]

A3. "A list of studies excluded from the review, with reasons for exclusion, should be provided." [No]

A4. "The search strategy for the review should be specified." [Yes]

A5. "The literature search should be conducted in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner." [Yes]

A6. "The selection of studies for the review should be conducted in duplicate and independently." [Yes]

A7. "The quality of individual studies should be assessed and documented." [Yes]

A8. "The methods used to combine the findings of studies should be appropriate." [Yes]

A9. "The likelihood of publication bias should be assessed." [NA]

A10. "The methods used to assess the quality of the review should be appropriate." [Yes]

A11. "The conflict of interest of individual studies should be reported." [Yes]

P1. "The title should include the words "systematic review" or "meta-analysis"." [Yes]

P2. "The title should include the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) if appropriate." [Yes]

P3. "The title should be specific, descriptive, and concise." [Yes]

P4. "The abstract should include the title, authors, and affiliations." [Yes]

P5. "The abstract should include the objective or purpose of the review." [Yes]

P6. "The abstract should include the methods used in the review." [Yes]

P7. "The abstract should include the main results of the review." [Yes]

P8. "The abstract should include the conclusions of the review." [Yes]

P9. "The abstract should include the registration number of the review in a registry." [NA]

P10. "The abstract should include the structured format." [Yes]

P11. "The abstract should include the keywords." [Yes]

P12. "The introduction should include the background and rationale for the review." [Yes]

P13. "The introduction should include the objectives of the review." [Yes]

P14. "The methods should include the eligibility criteria for studies." [Yes]

P15. "The methods should include the information sources." [Yes]

P16. "The methods should include the search strategy." [Yes]

P17. "The methods should include the selection process." [Yes]

P18. "The methods should include the data collection process." [Yes]

P19. "The methods should include the data items." [Yes]

P20. "The methods should include the risk of bias assessment." [Yes]

P21. "The methods should include the effect measures." [Yes]

P22. "The methods should include the synthesis methods." [Yes]

P23. "The methods should include the certainty assessment." [Yes]

P24. "The results should include the study characteristics." [Yes]

P25. "The results should include the results of the risk of bias assessment." [Yes]

P26. "The results should include the results of the effect measures." [Yes]

P27. "The results should include the results of the certainty assessment." [Yes]

121. Mullassery 2014: Does Aggressive Surgical Resection Improve Survival in Advanced Stage 3 and 4 Neuroblastoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 95.3%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* "A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently published studies was undertaken to critically examine the evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."
* The review has a clear research question and inclusion criteria, but it does not explicitly state that it was designed a priori.
* Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* "Studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using pre-specified search terms. Primary outcomes were 5-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after GTR and subtotal resection (STR) in Stage 3 or 4 NBL. Data were analyzed using Review Manager. The Mantel-Haenszel method and a random effects model was utilized to calculate odds ratios (95% CI). Fifteen studies (five Stage 3 and 13 Stage 4) met full inclusion criteria."
* The text does not explicitly state that study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two people.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* "Studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using pre-specified search terms."
* The text states that three electronic sources were searched, which is sufficient.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* "The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
* The text does not explicitly state that grey literature was searched or considered for inclusion.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* "A flow chart of the study selection process is outlined in Figure 1. The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
* The text provides a flow chart of the study selection process, but it does not explicitly state that a list of included and excluded studies is provided.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* "Characteristics of Included Studies Table 1. Study Year Country No. of patients in stage 3 No. of patients in stage 4 Matsumara 1988 [1] 1988 US 0 104 Tsuchida 1992 [15] 1992 Japan 18 92 Powis 1996 [16] 1996 ENSG 123 0 Kaneko 1997 [17] 1997 Japan 2 12 Castel 2002 [18] 2002 Spain 0 71 Von Schweinitz 2002 [19] 2002 Germany 0 551 Adkins 2004 [5] 2004 US 0 383 La Quaglia 2004 [6] 2004 US 0 141 McGregor 2005 [20] 2005 US 0 107 Kiely 2007 [4] 2007 UK 34 126 Sultan 2009 [21] 2009 US 0 291 Salim 2011 [22] 2011 UK 10 30 Rich 2011 [7] 2011 US 0 140 Simon 2013 [23] 2013 Germany 0 278 Koivusalo 2014 [58] 2013 Finland 13 (all GTR) 44"
* The text provides a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* "The included publications were all non-randomized observational studies. The decision to perform a particular surgical procedure (GTR or STR) was made by the operating surgeon(s) in the varied institutions defining their clinical outcomes. As such there are inherent risks of allocation bias as no blinding was performed with respect to the study participants or indeed assessors for surgical aspects of the studies. Although outcome assessments were performed in all studies in a similar manner there was no standardization of the intervention assignment for surgery. An additional factor to consider across all the studies was the varied chemotherapy regimens deployed in different countries which potentially may have had an effect on survival outcomes. However, we sought to minimize these risks by including only those published reports which clearly defined outcomes after both types of surgical resection (GTR and STR)."
* The text does not provide a clear assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* "Based on current “‘best evidence” we can report a clear survival advantage for GTR in stage 3 neuroblastoma. By contrast, GTR would appear to have a very limited impact on improving OS in stage 4 disease. We believe a prospective well-designed random-ized trial incorporating patient age, tumor site and elements of tumor biology (MYCN, DNA ploidy status, etc.) is needed to fully address the role of surgery in stage 4 neuroblastoma."
* The text formulates conclusions based on the results of the review, but it does not explicitly consider the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating these conclusions.
* Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* "A meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines. Review Manager (Revman version 5.1.0) was used for the meta analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random ef-
fects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes. I
2 
statistic was used to measure heterogeneity between studies."
* The text states that a meta-analysis was performed and that a random effects model was used, but it does not explicitly state that the studies were tested for homogeneity.
* Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* "Funnel plots for stage 4 neuroblastoma studies showed grouping of studies at the apex of the plot suggesting that larger studies with higher patient numbers are more likely to have been included. The lack of studies gathered at the base of the plot suggests a paucity of publications of smaller sample size. The plot is not symmetrical suggesting that there is most likely to be elements of publication bias here."
* The text states that a funnel plot was used to assess publication bias, but it does not explicitly state that any statistical tests were used.
* Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* The text does not explicitly state whether potential sources of support were clearly acknowledged in the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Does Aggressive Surgical Resection Improve Survival in Advanced Stage 3 and 4 Neuroblastoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
* The report is identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "The role of surgery in the management of advanced staged neuroblastoma (NBL) is controversial."
* The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently published studies was undertaken to critically examine the evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."
* The introduction provides an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, including the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* The text does not explicitly state whether a review protocol exists or provide registration information.
* Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using pre-specified search terms. Primary outcomes were 5-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after GTR and subtotal resection (STR) in Stage 3 or 4 NBL."
* The text specifies the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, but it does not provide a rationale for these criteria.
* Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "Studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using pre-specified search terms. The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
* The text describes the information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* The text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using pre-specified search terms. The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
* The text states the process for selecting studies, including screening, eligibility, and inclusion in the systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* The text does not provide a clear description of the data collection process.
* Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* The text does not provide a clear list and definition of all variables for which data were sought.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "The included publications were all non-randomized observational studies. The decision to perform a particular surgical procedure (GTR or STR) was made by the operating surgeon(s) in the varied institutions defining their clinical outcomes. As such there are inherent risks of allocation bias as no blinding was performed with respect to the study participants or indeed assessors for surgical aspects of the studies. Although outcome assessments were performed in all studies in a similar manner there was no standardization of the intervention assignment for surgery. An additional factor to consider across all the studies was the varied chemotherapy regimens deployed in different countries which potentially may have had an effect on survival outcomes. However, we sought to minimize these risks by including only those published reports which clearly defined outcomes after both types of surgical resection (GTR and STR)."
* The text describes methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, but it does not provide a clear specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level or how this information is to be used in data synthesis.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* The text does not provide a clear statement of the principal summary measures.
* Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "A meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines. Review Manager (Revman version 5.1.0) was used for the meta analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random ef-
fects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes. I
2 
statistic was used to measure heterogeneity between studies."
* The text describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency.
* Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* The text states that an assessment of publication bias was performed, but it does not explicitly state that any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was performed.
* Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* The text does not provide a clear description of methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* The text provides a flow diagram of the study selection process.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "Characteristics of Included Studies Table 1. Study Year Country No. of patients in stage 3 No. of patients in stage 4 Matsumara 1988 [1] 1988 US 0 104 Tsuchida 1992 [15] 1992 Japan 18 92 Powis 1996 [16] 1996 ENSG 123 0 Kaneko 1997 [17] 1997 Japan 2 12 Castel 2002 [18] 2002 Spain 0 71 Von Schweinitz 2002 [19] 2002 Germany 0 551 Adkins 2004 [5] 2004 US 0 383 La Quaglia 2004 [6] 2004 US 0 141 McGregor 2005 [20] 2005 US 0 107 Kiely 2007 [4] 2007 UK 34 126 Sultan 2009 [21] 2009 US 0 291 Salim 2011 [22] 2011 UK 10 30 Rich 2011 [7] 2011 US 0 140 Simon 2013 [23] 2013 Germany 0 278 Koivusalo 2014 [58] 2013 Finland 13 (all GTR) 44"
* The text presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* The text does not provide a clear presentation of data on risk of bias of each study.
* Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* The text does not provide a clear presentation of results of individual studies, including simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates with confidence intervals.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "A meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines. Review Manager (Revman version 5.1.0) was used for the meta analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random ef-
fects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes. I
2 
statistic was used to measure heterogeneity between studies."
* The text states that a meta-analysis was performed and presents results of each meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* The text states that an assessment of publication bias was performed, but it does not explicitly state that any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was performed.
* Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Describe results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* The text does not provide a clear description of results of additional analyses.
* Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Based on current “‘best evidence” we can report a clear survival advantage for GTR in stage 3 neuroblastoma. By contrast, GTR would appear to have a very limited impact on improving OS in stage 4 disease. We believe a prospective well-designed random-ized trial incorporating patient age, tumor site and elements of tumor biology (MYCN, DNA ploidy status, etc.) is needed to fully address the role of surgery in stage 4 neuroblastoma."
* The text summarizes the main findings and considers their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "The included publications were all non-randomized observational studies. The decision to perform a particular surgical procedure (GTR or STR) was made by the operating surgeon(s) in the varied institutions defining their clinical outcomes. As such there are inherent risks of allocation bias as no blinding was performed with respect to the study participants or indeed assessors for surgical aspects of the studies. Although outcome assessments were performed in all studies in a similar manner there was no standardization of the intervention assignment for surgery. An additional factor to consider across all the studies was the varied chemotherapy regimens deployed in different countries which potentially may have had an effect on survival outcomes. However, we sought to minimize these risks by including only those published reports which clearly defined outcomes after both types of surgical resection (GTR and STR)."
* The text discusses limitations at study and outcome level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Based on current “‘best evidence” we can report a clear survival advantage for GTR in stage 3 neuroblastoma. By contrast, GTR would appear to have a very limited impact on improving OS in stage 4 disease. We believe a prospective well-designed random-ized trial incorporating patient age, tumor site and elements of tumor biology (MYCN, DNA ploidy status, etc.) is needed to fully address the role of surgery in stage 4 neuroblastoma."
* The text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* The text does not provide a clear description of sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
* Response: [No]

123. Narayanan 2013: Hepaticoduodenostomy versus hepaticojejunostomy after resection of choledochal cyst: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "Studies comparing outcomes from HD and HJ after choledochal cyst excision were identified by searching Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier Clinicalkey, Google Scholar and Cochrane library."
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review, as evidenced by the systematic search strategy.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* Three reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from selected studies, indicating the presence of duplicate study selection and data extraction.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012" [...] ""
* The review included a comprehensive literature search using multiple electronic databases and a specified time frame.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "All studies included in this meta-analysis were published in English, although no language restriction was imposed."
* The review included studies regardless of their publication type, but only studies published in English were included.
* [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "The reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process."
* The review did not provide a list of included and excluded studies, but the reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "The characteristics of these studies are demonstrated in Table 1."
* The review provided the characteristics of the included studies in a table.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided.

* "The reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process."
* The review did not provide information on the scientific quality of the included studies or the methods used to assess their quality.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The results from meta-analysis of the studies with regard to adverse outcomes and functional outcomes are summarized below and in Table 2."
* The review did not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
* The review used appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies.
* [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 ."
* The review assessed statistical heterogeneity, but did not provide information on the likelihood of publication bias.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "The latest search was performed in December 2012."
* The review did not provide information on potential sources of support or conflicts of interest.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Review Articles Hepaticoduodenostomy versus hepaticojejunostomy after resection of choledochal cyst: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
* The report was identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background: Excision has been established as a standard management practice for choledochal cysts in the last few decades. The two most commonly performed methods of reconstruction after excision are hepaticoduodenostomy (HD) and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), of which the HJ is favored by most surgeons. Evidence concerning the optimal method of reconstruction is, however, sparse."
* The abstract provided a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "The management of the choledochal cysts has evolved from simple drainage procedures to the most innovative bilio-enteric anastomotic reconstruction."
* The introduction provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Studies comparing outcomes from HD and HJ after choledochal cyst excision were identified by searching Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier Clinicalkey, Google Scholar and Cochrane library."
* The review did not provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012" [...] ""
* The review did not provide information on the existence of a review protocol or its registration.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "All studies included in this meta-analysis were published in English, although no language restriction was imposed."
* The review specified report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, but did not provide information on study characteristics or rationale.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012" [...] ""
* The review described all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "The reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process."
* The review did not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on the process for selecting studies.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review described the method of data extraction from reports and the process for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on the variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies or how this information is to be used in data synthesis.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
* The review stated the principal summary measures.
* [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
* The review described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
* [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 ."
* The review assessed statistical heterogeneity, but did not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
* [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on methods of additional analyses.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "The characteristics of these studies are demonstrated in Table 1."
* The review presented the characteristics of the included studies in a table.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide information on the risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "The results from meta-analysis of the studies with regard to adverse outcomes and functional outcomes are summarized below and in Table 2."
* The review did not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for all outcomes considered.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
* The review presented results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).

* "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 ."
* The review assessed statistical heterogeneity, but did not provide results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
* [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
* The review did not provide results of additional analyses.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "The choice between HD and HJ is still a matter of debate."
* The review summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "There are few limitations in this study."
* The review discussed limitations at study and outcome level, but did not provide information on review-level limitations.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Based on the evidence of this study, HD as a method of reconstruction after excision of a choledochal cyst is a suitable alternative to HJ."
* The review provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "The latest search was performed in December 2012."
* The review did not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
* [No]

125. Nasr 2013: Mechanical Traction Techniques for Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: A Critical Appraisal

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

18 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed, including all articles describing the Foker technique or delayed primary anastomosis."
* The review provides an 'a priori' design by specifying the research question and inclusion criteria in the methods section.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Studies which were designed to describe both procedures were selected for review."
* The review does not explicitly state that there were at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "All publications describing both surgical procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), Embase (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward), and from hand searching journals and conference proceedings. The terms ‘‘EA,’’ ‘‘long gap,’’ ‘‘Foker,’’ ‘‘laparotomy,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopy’’ were mapped to their corresponding MeSH (medical subject headings) terms and then combined. There were no language restrictions. Further results were obtained by manually searching for articles that were mentioned and cross-referencing the studies in the electronic search. Letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data were excluded."
* The review provides a comprehensive literature search by searching multiple electronic databases, hand searching journals and conference proceedings, and mapping terms to MeSH terms.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "Letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data were excluded."
* The review excluded letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data, but it is not clear if they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "The literature search resulted in a total of 115 articles, after screening and exclusion of nonrelevant and duplicate publications. Six articles met our criteria for inclusion and the full text was examined more in detail."
* The review provides a list of included studies, but not a list of excluded studies.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "The overall numbers of study subjects managed in these publications were 71 infants, ranging from 1 to 60 newborns with long-gap EA per study. All infants had long-gap EA without TEF. Data about the initial gap length were reported in all studies with a mean of 5.4 cm (range 3--12.5 cm). No study reported data about the preoperative gap length. The time until an anastomosis could be achieved was reported in all studies with a mean of 14  8.2 days. The follow-up time was 5 years (range 0.2--10 years)."
* The review provides the characteristics of the included studies in an aggregated form.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "We used the minor criteria to assess the methodological quality of these studies."
* The review assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the minor criteria, but it is not clear what those criteria are.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The purpose of this study is to critically analyze the reported outcomes after the use of this technique."
* The review does not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Mechanical Traction Techniques for Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: A Critical Appraisal"
* The report identifies itself as a systematic review in the title.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background: Long-gap esophageal atresia (EA) represents a challenging problem for pediatric surgeons, and a large number of techniques and approaches have been proposed. One of the more recent, initially published by Foker, is the use of mechanical traction to accelerate the growth of the esophageal ends and permit earlier primary anastomosis. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the existing literature on this topic and to compare the Foker technique to the more conventional delayed primary anastomosis. Methods: A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed, including all articles describing the Foker procedure or delayed primary anastomosis. Primary outcome was complications, and secondary outcome was time to final anastomosis. Results: Six articles on the Foker procedure met the criteria for inclusion. None were prospective or randomized. These articles represented 71 infants undergoing the Foker procedure, which were compared with 451 children from 44 studies utilizing delayed primary anastomosis. The Foker procedure was associated with a significantly lower risk of complications (leak, stricture, and gastroesophageal reflux), and with a significantly shorter time to definitive anastomosis. Conclusions: The use of mechanical traction appears to be at least as effective as delayed primary anastomosis for the management of long-gap EA. Future prospective studies and the establishment of a prospective registry are required to further elucidate this issue."
* The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Esophageal atresia (EA) is a relatively common congenital malformation of unknown etiology with an incidence of 1 in 3,500 live births. Pure EA without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) is an uncommon variant, comprising 8% of all patients with EA, with an expected incidence of 1 in 40,000 live births. Improvements in prenatal diagnosis and care, advances in surgical technique, pediatric anesthesia, neonatal intensive care, and nutritional support have increased the survival rate in EA in recent years to approximately 95%. Although most children with EA can undergo primary repair in the neonatal period, the presence of prematurity, associated anomalies and long-gap EA may preclude an immediate primary end-to-end anastomosis. Thus, surgical management of patients with long-gap EA represents a major challenge to pediatric surgeons."
* The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the existing literature on this topic and to compare the Foker technique to the more conventional delayed primary anastomosis."
* The review provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "All publications describing both surgical procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), Embase (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward), and from hand searching journals and conference proceedings. The terms ‘‘EA,’’ ‘‘long gap,’’ ‘‘Foker,’’ ‘‘laparotomy,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopy’’ were mapped to their corresponding MeSH (medical subject headings) terms and then combined. There were no language restrictions. Further results were obtained by manually searching for articles that were mentioned and cross-referencing the studies in the electronic search. Letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data were excluded."
* The review specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "All publications describing both surgical procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), Embase (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward), and from hand searching journals and conference proceedings. The terms ‘‘EA,’’ ‘‘long gap,’’ ‘‘Foker,’’ ‘‘laparotomy,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopy’’ were mapped to their corresponding MeSH (medical subject headings) terms and then combined. There were no language restrictions. Further results were obtained by manually searching for articles that were mentioned and cross-referencing the studies in the electronic search. Letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data were excluded."
* The review describes all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Studies which were designed to describe both procedures were selected for review."
* The review states the process for selecting studies, but it is not clear what studies were included in the systematic review.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "We used the minor criteria to assess the methodological quality of these studies."
* The review assessed the risk of bias of individual studies using the minor criteria, but it is not clear what those criteria are.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "The literature search resulted in a total of 115 articles, after screening and exclusion of nonrelevant and duplicate publications. Six articles met our criteria for inclusion and the full text was examined more in detail."
* The review gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but it does not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "The overall numbers of study subjects managed in these publications were 71 infants, ranging from 1 to 60 newborns with long-gap EA per study. All infants had long-gap EA without TEF. Data about the initial gap length were reported in all studies with a mean of 5.4 cm (range 3--12.5 cm). No study reported data about the preoperative gap length. The time until an anastomosis could be achieved was reported in all studies with a mean of 14  8.2 days. The follow-up time was 5 years (range 0.2--10 years)."
* The review presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "We used the minor criteria to assess the methodological quality of these studies."
* The review assessed the risk of bias of each study using the minor criteria, but it is not clear what those criteria are.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "The use of mechanical traction appears to be at least as effective as delayed primary anastomosis for the management of long-gap EA. Future prospective studies and the establishment of a prospective registry are required to further elucidate this issue."
* The review summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "The use of mechanical traction appears to be at least as effective as delayed primary anastomosis for the management of long-gap EA. Future prospective studies and the establishment of a prospective registry are required to further elucidate this issue."
* The review provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Not reported in the full text.
* [No]

126. Nataraja 2013: The Incidence of Intraabdominal Abscess Formation Following Laparoscopic Appendicectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 42.7%)

27 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 58.3%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did not change during its execution." [Yes]

A2: "The review methods were described in detail and included specification of methods used to locate, select, extract and appraise studies, and to analyze and combine the data." [Yes]

A3: "The characteristics of the included studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A4: "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate tools." [Yes]

A5: "The scientific quality of the included studies was reported in detail." [Yes]

A6: "The methods used for combining the findings of the included studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A7: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A8: "The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions." [Yes]

A9: "The methods for assessing the scientific quality of included studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A10: "The conclusions were supported by the data presented." [Yes]

A11: "The review was conducted by individuals who had no relationships that could bias their activities." [Yes]

P1: "Title: The title of the report should include the words 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'." [Yes]

P2: "Abstract: The abstract should include the following elements: Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions." [Yes]

P3: "Introduction: The introduction should include a rationale for the review and a description of the research question." [Yes]

P4: "Methods: The methods should include an explicit description of the following: eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection process, data items, risk of bias in individual studies, summary measures, synthesis of results, and risk of bias across studies." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The methods should include a description of the effect measures (for example, odds ratio, risk ratio, hazard ratio, or standardized mean difference) and the statistical methods used to combine the results of studies." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The methods should include a description of any assessments of risk of bias that were conducted in individual studies (including study selection, data collection, and outcome reporting) and any assessments of risk of bias that were conducted across studies." [Yes]

P7: "Methods: The methods should include a description of the methods used for assessing the quality of individual studies." [Yes]

P8: "Methods: The methods should include a description of the methods used for assessing the quality of the review." [Yes]

P9: "Results: The results should include a description of the following: study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias within studies, risk of bias across studies, results of individual studies, synthesis of results, and additional analyses." [Yes]

P10: "Results: The results should include a description of the results of any assessments of risk of bias that were conducted in individual studies and any assessments of risk of bias that were conducted across studies." [Yes]

P11: "Results: The results should include a description of the results of any assessments of the quality of individual studies." [Yes]

P12: "Discussion: The discussion should include a summary of the evidence, a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review, a discussion of the implications of the findings, and a discussion of the limitations of the evidence." [Yes]

P13: "Discussion: The discussion should include a discussion of any potential sources of heterogeneity and inconsistency in the results." [Yes]

P14: "Discussion: The discussion should include a discussion of the limitations of the evidence." [Yes]

P15: "Discussion: The discussion should include a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice and policy makers." [Yes]

P16: "Discussion: The discussion should include a discussion of the implications of the findings for future research." [Yes]

P17: "Funding: The report should include information about the sources of funding for the systematic review and/or individual studies." [Yes]

P18: "Conflicts of interest: The report should include information about any conflicts of interest that threaten the validity of the review." [Yes]

P19: "Registration and protocol: The report should include information about whether a review protocol exists, where it can be accessed, and any amendments to the protocol." [Yes]

P20: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the registration number of the review in a registry for systematic reviews." [Yes]

P21: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about whether a review protocol exists and where it can be accessed." [Yes]

P22: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about any amendments to the protocol." [Yes]

P23: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the reporting of harms." [NA]

P24: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the reporting of adverse events." [NA]

P25: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the reporting of serious adverse events." [NA]

P26: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the reporting of serious adverse reactions." [NA]

P27: "Protocol and registration: The report should include information about the reporting of suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions." [NA]

129. Oomen 2012: Open Versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Major Complications

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 31.9%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A2: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A3: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A4: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A5: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A6: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A7: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A8: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A9: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A10: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

A11: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P1: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P2: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P3: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P4: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P5: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P6: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P7: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P8: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P9: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P10: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P11: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P12: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P13: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P14: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P15: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P16: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P17: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P18: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P19: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P20: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P21: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P22: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P23: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [NA]

P24: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P25: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P26: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

P27: "The review included a comprehensive search strategy, with no language or date restrictions." [Yes]

130. Parolini 2016: The management of newborns with esophageal atresia and right aortic arch: A systematic review or still unsolved problem

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1


LLM response

2 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 36.6%)

36 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 60.6%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and described in the published review." [Yes]

A2. "A list of studies (included and excluded) was supplied." [Yes]

A3. "The characteristics of the included studies were reported." [Yes]

A4. "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented." [Yes]

A5. "The methods used for combining study data were described." [Yes]

A6. "The likelihood of publication bias was examined." [NA]

A7. "The characteristics of the included studies were used to assess possible publication bias." [NA]

A8. "The scientific quality of the included studies was used to assess possible publication bias." [NA]

A9. "Study characteristics and quality were used to assess possible small-study effects." [NA]

A10. "The presence and impact of heterogeneity was assessed." [Yes]

A11. "The methods for combining study data were justified." [Yes]

P1. "Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or review." [Yes]

P2. "Title: Use a title that accurately and concisely describes the review." [Yes]

P3. "Abstract: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, study design, setting, methods, main results, and conclusions." [Yes]

P4. "Abstract: Include the structured summary in all databases and indexing services." [Yes]

P5. "Introduction: Specify the research question and the objectives of the review in the introduction." [Yes]

P6. "Methods: Provide an explicit description of the review methods (e.g., search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment)." [Yes]

P7. "Methods: Describe the methods for assessing risk of bias in individual studies (including selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias) if appropriate." [Yes]

P8. "Methods: Describe the methods for combining data and for assessing the quality of evidence (e.g., GRADE) if appropriate." [Yes]

P9. "Methods: Describe any methods used to examine the potential for small-study effects (e.g., publication bias)." [NA]

P10. "Methods: Specify the characteristics of studies considered for the review." [Yes]

P11. "Methods: Describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies included in the review." [Yes]

P12. "Methods: Describe the methods used for data synthesis." [Yes]

P13. "Results: Present the results of the search and study selection." [Yes]

P14. "Results: Describe the characteristics of included studies." [Yes]

P15. "Results: Present results of the individual studies." [Yes]

P16. "Results: Summarize the evidence (e.g., meta-analysis, GRADE) if appropriate." [Yes]

P17. "Discussion: Discuss the results in the context of other published literature." [Yes]

P18. "Discussion: Describe the limitations of the review." [Yes]

P19. "Discussion: Discuss the implications of the findings and their potential importance." [Yes]

P20. "Discussion: Report any potential sources of conflict of interest." [Yes]

P21. "Funding: Report the source of funding for the review and any other competing interests." [Yes]

P22. "Availability of data, code, and other materials: Provide information about data availability, code, and other materials." [Yes]

P23. "Registration and protocol: Indicate registration number and provide a link to the protocol if available." [Yes]

P24. "Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, websites, contact with study authors, organizational archives)." [Yes]

P25. "Search: Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, and the date of the most recent search." [Yes]

P26. "Study selection: Describe the process of study selection (e.g., screening, eligibility, and inclusion criteria)." [Yes]

P27. "Data collection process: Describe the methods used for data extraction and quality assessment in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

131. Parolini 2014: Cervical/thoracotomic/thoracoscopic approaches for H-type congenital tracheo-esophageal fistula: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

6 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

31 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "Aim of this systematic review is to investigate the thoracic and cervical surgical approaches of H-type tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) according to the position of the fistula."
* The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
* [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Two independent authors extracted information related to the study."
* Duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "The PubMed database was searched for original studies on H-type TEF treatment published between 1977 and 2012."
* Two electronic sources were searched, and the search strategy was provided.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type."
* The status of publication was not used as an inclusion criterion.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
* A list of studies was not provided.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
* The characteristics of the included studies were not provided in an aggregated form.
* [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided.

* "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was not assessed and documented.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
* The scientific quality of the included studies was not used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."
* The methods used to combine the findings of studies were not appropriate, as no meta-analysis was conducted.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15)."
* The likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
* The conflict of interest was not included.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Review Article"
* The report was not identified as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
* [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number."
* A structured summary was not provided.
* [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Aim of this systematic review is to investigate the thoracic and cervical surgical approaches of H-type tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) according to the position of the fistula."
* The rationale for the review was described.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "Aim of this systematic review is to investigate the thoracic and cervical surgical approaches of H-type tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) according to the position of the fistula."
* The objectives were not explicitly stated with reference to PICOS.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."
* A review protocol was not indicated.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
* Study characteristics and report characteristics were not specified.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "The PubMed database was searched for original studies on H-type TEF treatment published between 1977 and 2012."
* All information sources were not described.
* [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
* The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."
* The process for selecting studies was not stated.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
* The method of data extraction from reports was not described.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
* The variables for which data were sought were not listed and defined.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
* The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not described.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
* The principal summary measures were not stated.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis."
* The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not described.
* [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."
* The assessment of risk of bias across studies was not specified.
* [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified."
* The methods of additional analyses were not described.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
* The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were not given.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
* The characteristics of the included studies were not presented.
* [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)."
* The data on risk of bias of each study were not presented.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot."
* The results of individual studies were not presented.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."
* The results of each meta-analysis were not presented.
* [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).

* "Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15)."
* The results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies were not presented.
* [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* "Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16])."
* The results of additional analyses were not given.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
* The main findings were not summarized.
* [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
* The limitations were not discussed.
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."
* The general interpretation of the results was not provided.
* [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
* The sources of funding for the systematic review were not described.
* [No]

132. Peters 2013: Morbidity and mortality in total esophagogastric dissociation: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 39.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A2: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A3: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A4: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A5: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A6: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A7: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A8: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A9: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A10: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

A11: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P1: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P2: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P3: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P4: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P5: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P6: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P7: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P8: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P9: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P10: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P11: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P12: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P13: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P14: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P15: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P16: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P17: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P18: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P19: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P20: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P21: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P22: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P23: [NA]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P24: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P25: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P26: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

P27: [Yes]

> "The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."

133. Peycelon 2014: Minimally Invasive Surgery in Childhood Cancer: A Challenging Future

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.9%)

7 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 58.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "Our review focuses on the data from the past five years from 2009 to 2014 to try to delineate the new upcoming events in the field of MIS in childhood cancer."
* The review does not explicitly mention an 'a priori' design, but it does specify the time frame and scope of the review.
* [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, childhood/children/pediatric cancer). Articles were also identified by searching the author’s own files. Only papers published in English language were reviewed. The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not explicitly mention duplicate study selection and data extraction, nor does it mention a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, childhood/children/pediatric cancer)."
* The review mentions using PubMed as a search source, but it does not mention any other electronic sources or supplementary search strategies.
* [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "Only papers published in English language were reviewed."
* The review explicitly states that only papers published in English were reviewed, indicating that publication status was used as an inclusion criterion.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "The review does not provide a table or other aggregated form of the characteristics of the included studies."
* [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "The review does not mention assessing or documenting the scientific quality of the included studies."
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "The review does not mention using the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions."
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* "The review does not mention combining the findings of studies or assessing their homogeneity."
* [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* "The review does not mention assessing publication bias."
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "The review does not mention acknowledging potential sources of support."
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Minimally Invasive Surgery in Childhood Cancer: A Challenging Future"
* The title does not explicitly identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
* [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Introduction Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative to open approach for cancer diagnosis in children 20 years ago, but only recently for tumor resection. The purpose of this review is to update the use of MIS in pediatric oncological surgery over the past five years. Methods The authors conducted a systematic review of papers published between 2009 and 2014 focusing on indications and results of the technique. Results New indications in Wilms tumor, pheochromocytoma, and lung nodules have emerged, thanks to the growing use of MIS in benign urological and thoracic surgery with satisfactory results. Case control studies comparing MIS to open approach have been published for the first time in more classical indications such as neurogenic tumors, while robot-assisted procedure has shown concern in results about its early experience in solid tumors. Conclusion MIS is a promising method for removal of thoracic and abdominal malignancies as long as oncological principles are strictly followed. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to further delineate objective indications."
* The abstract provides a brief summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, and results. However, it does not mention study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, or a systematic review registration number.
* [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Introduction Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative to open approach for cancer diagnosis in children 20 years ago, but only recently for tumor resection. The purpose of this review is to update the use of MIS in pediatric oncological surgery over the past five years."
* The introduction provides a brief rationale for the review, explaining that the review aims to update the use of MIS in pediatric oncological surgery over the past five years.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "The purpose of this review is to update the use of MIS in pediatric oncological surgery over the past five years."
* The introduction provides a clear objective for the review, but it does not explicitly mention participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, or study design.
* [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Our review focuses on the data from the past five years from 2009 to 2014 to try to delineate the new upcoming events in the field of MIS in childhood cancer."
* The review does not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration information.
* [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, childhood/children/pediatric cancer). Articles were also identified by searching the author’s own files. Only papers published in English language were reviewed. The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review mentions using PubMed as a search source and only reviewing papers published in English, but it does not explicitly mention other study characteristics or report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, childhood/children/pediatric cancer)."
* The review mentions using PubMed as a search source, but it does not mention any other information sources or the date last searched.
* [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, thoracoscopy, childhood/children/pediatric cancer)."
* The review does not present the full electronic search strategy for PubMed or any other database.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not explicitly state the process for selecting studies.
* [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention the data collection process.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention the data items sought.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention the principal summary measures.
* [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention handling data or combining results of studies.
* [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
* [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention additional analyses.
* [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, nor does it provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
* [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not present the characteristics of the studies included in the review.
* [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
* [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not present the results of individual studies.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not present the results of any meta-analyses.
* [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
* [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "The final list of references was generated on the basis of their publication date and their relevance in the scope of this review."
* The review does not mention or present results of any additional analyses.
* [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Conclusion MIS is a promising method for removal of thoracic and abdominal malignancies as long as oncological principles are strictly followed. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to further delineate objective indications."
* The review provides a brief summary of the main findings and the relevance of the findings to key groups, but it does not explicitly mention the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "The review does not mention any limitations at study, outcome, or review-level."
* [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Conclusion MIS is a promising method for removal of thoracic and abdominal malignancies as long as oncological principles are strictly followed. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to further delineate objective indications."
* The review provides a brief interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research, but it does not explicitly mention other evidence or provide a detailed interpretation of the results.
* [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "The review does not mention sources of funding for the systematic review or other support."
* [No]

134. Pfistermuller 2015: Meta-analysis of complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA NA NA 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 NA 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

4 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 68%)

28 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 89.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers." [Yes]

A2. "The reviewers were not blinded to the authors or journals of the studies." [No]

A3. "A list of studies (included and excluded) with reasons for exclusions at each stage." [Yes]

A4. "Study characteristics and details of study interventions." [Yes]

A5. "Study results and risk of bias within studies." [Yes]

A6. "Summary of evidence." [Yes]

A7. "Publication bias." [NA]

A8. "Conflicts of interest." [Yes]

A9. "Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis." [NA]

A10. "Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis." [NA]

A11. "Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis." [NA]

P1. "Identification of the review question or objective." [Yes]

P2. "Identification of relevant studies." [Yes]

P3. "Study selection." [Yes]

P4. "Data collection process." [Yes]

P5. "Data items." [Yes]

P6. "Risk of bias in individual studies." [Yes]

P7. "Summary measures." [Yes]

P8. "Synthesis of results." [Yes]

P9. "Risk of bias across studies." [NA]

P10. "Additional analyses." [NA]

P11. "Confidence in cumulative estimate." [NA]

P12. "Study characteristics." [Yes]

P13. "Risk of bias within studies." [Yes]

P14. "Results of individual studies." [Yes]

P15. "Synthesis of results." [Yes]

P16. "Risk of bias across studies." [NA]

P17. "Additional analysis." [NA]

P18. "Confidence in cumulative estimate." [NA]

P19. "Summary of evidence." [Yes]

P20. "Support for claims of superiority." [Yes]

P21. "Limitations." [NA]

P22. "Conclusions." [Yes]

P23. "Funding." [Yes]

P24. "Registration and protocol." [Yes]

P25. "Conflict of interest." [Yes]

P26. "Availability of data, code, and other materials." [NA]

P27. "Protocol and registration." [Yes]

136. Reddy 2010: Ureteroscopy: The standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 1 1 1 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

*Quote*: "The purpose of this study is to determine whether the safety and efficacy of URS now warrant it being considered the standard of care and the first line of therapy in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."

*Reasoning*: The research question is clearly stated in the introduction of the article.

*Response*: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

*Quote*: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."

*Reasoning*: The authors conducted a systematic review of articles on PubMed, but it is not explicitly stated if there were at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements.

*Response*: [NA]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

*Quote*: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."

*Reasoning*: The authors conducted a systematic review of articles on PubMed, but it is not explicitly stated if they searched other electronic sources or supplemented the search with other strategies.

*Response*: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

*Quote*: "The success rates and complications of pediatric ureteroscopic procedures were abstracted from the identified publications and the results were tabulated and compared with the success rates of shockwave lithotripsy."

*Reasoning*: The authors did not explicitly state if they searched for grey literature or if they excluded any reports based on their publication status.

*Response*: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

*Quote*: "A total of 27 papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review were identified and the data were abstracted."

*Reasoning*: The authors identified and abstracted data from 27 papers, but it is not explicitly stated if they provided a list of included and excluded studies.

*Response*: [NA]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

*Quote*: "Over the past 20 years, the results of 832 pediatric patients (mean age, 9.4 years) managed with URS to treat stones have been published in the urological literature."

*Reasoning*: The authors provided the mean age of the patients, but it is not explicitly stated if they reported the ranges of characteristics of the included studies.

*Response*: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The authors compared the success rate and complication rate of URS and ESWL, but it is not explicitly stated if they assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies.

*Response*: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

*Quote*: "In this systematic review of the literature, URS is shown to be safer and more efficacious than ESWL in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."

*Reasoning*: The authors concluded that URS is safer and more efficacious than ESWL in the management of pediatric urolithiasis, but it is not explicitly stated if they considered the results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.

*Response*: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The authors compared the success rate and complication rate of URS and ESWL, but it is not explicitly stated if they assessed the homogeneity of the studies or used appropriate methods to combine the findings.

*Response*: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The authors compared the success rate and complication rate of URS and ESWL, but it is not explicitly stated if they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.

*Response*: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

*Quote*: "For correspondence: Dr. Pramod P. Reddy, 3333 Burnet Ave., Surgical Services, Division of Pediatric Urology (MC5037), Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA. E-mail: pramod.reddy@cchmc.org"

*Reasoning*: The authors provided their contact information, but it is not explicitly stated if they acknowledged potential sources of support.

*Response*: [NA]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

*Quote*: "Ureteroscopy: The standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in children"

*Reasoning*: The title of the article suggests that it is a review article, but it is not explicitly stated if it is a systematic review or meta-analysis.

*Response*: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

*Quote*: "Abstract Objectives: Advances in technology and the continued evolution in the design of ureteroscopes now permit a primary endoscopic approach to the upper urinary tract of pediatric patients on a routine basis to treat a diverse group of conditions that include urolithiasis, hematuria and strictures. The purpose of this review article is to demonstrate that ureteroscopic lithotripsy is now to be considered the standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in the pediatric patient, replacing shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first line of therapy. Additionally, the article will discuss the available endoscopic equipment and the lessons learned over the years to optimize the success of these procedures in children."

*Reasoning*: The abstract provides a structured summary of the article, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, and results.

*Response*: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Quote*: "The earliest documented instance of an ureteroscopic procedure was interestingly performed in a pediatric patient by Drs. Young and McKay in 1929 on a 2-week-old baby with posterior urethral valves. They used a pediatric cystoscope to perform URS of the dilated ureters. However, it was only after Drs. Shepherd and Ritchey published their respective papers on pediatric URS in 1988 that this technique gained widespread acceptance by pediatric urologists."

*Reasoning*: The introduction provides a rationale for the review, including the historical context of ureteroscopy in pediatric patients.

*Response*: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

*Quote*: "The purpose of this study is to determine whether the safety and efficacy of URS now warrant it being considered the standard of care and the first line of therapy in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."

*Reasoning*: The objectives of the study are explicitly stated in the introduction.

*Response*: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not mention if a review protocol exists or if it is registered.

*Response*: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

*Quote*: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."

*Reasoning*: The methods section specifies the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, but it does not provide a rationale for the eligibility criteria.

*Response*: [NA]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

*Quote*: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."

*Reasoning*: The methods section specifies the information sources used in the search, but it does not provide the dates of coverage or the date last searched.

*Response*: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.

*Response*: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

*Quote*: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."

*Reasoning*: The methods section states the process for selecting studies, but it does not provide details on the screening, eligibility, and inclusion process.

*Response*: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the data collection process.

*Response*: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the data items sought.

*Response*: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the risk of bias in individual studies.

*Response*: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The methods section states the principal summary measures.

*Response*: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the synthesis of results.

*Response*: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the risk of bias across studies.

*Response*: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on additional analyses.

*Response*: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

*Quote*: "A total of 27 papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review were identified and the data were abstracted."

*Reasoning*: The results section provides the number of papers included in the review, but it does not provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded.

*Response*: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

*Quote*: "Over the past 20 years, the results of 832 pediatric patients (mean age, 9.4 years) managed with URS to treat stones have been published in the urological literature."

*Reasoning*: The results section provides the characteristics of the patients included in the review, but it does not provide the characteristics of each study.

*Response*: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the risk of bias within studies.

*Response*: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The results section provides the simple summary data for each intervention group, but it does not provide the effect estimates and confidence intervals.

*Response*: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the synthesis of results.

*Response*: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the risk of bias across studies.

*Response*: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on additional analyses.

*Response*: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

*Quote*: "In this systematic review of the literature, URS is shown to be safer and more efficacious than ESWL in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."

*Reasoning*: The discussion section summarizes the main findings and the relevance of the findings to key groups.

*Response*: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

*Quote*: "The success rate of URS is 93.4% (compared with 80.3% for ESWL). The complication rate associated with the URS procedures is 5.9% (compared with 8.4% for ESWL)."

*Reasoning*: The discussion section does not explicitly discuss the limitations of the review.

*Response*: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

*Quote*: "In this systematic review of the literature, URS is shown to be safer and more efficacious than ESWL in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."

*Reasoning*: The discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.

*Response*: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

*Quote*: "Not applicable."

*Reasoning*: The article does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review.

*Response*: [No]

137. Romao 2012: What is the best prosthetic material for patch repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia? Comparison and meta-analysis of porcine small intestinal submucosa and polytetrafluoroethylene

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 0 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA


LLM response

7 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 43.6%)

31 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 59.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods should be specified in the review, including the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessment." [Yes]

A2: "The review should include a comprehensive search strategy, including electronic databases, hand searching, and other sources." [Yes]

A3: "The review should include explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, including study design, population, intervention, and outcome." [Yes]

A4: "The review should include a systematic and explicit data extraction process, including study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, and outcome data." [Yes]

A5: "The review should include a quality assessment process, including a validated tool and a scoring system." [Yes]

A6: "The review should include a description of the methods used to combine study results, including statistical methods and software used." [NA]

A7: "The review should include a description of the methods used to assess publication bias, including funnel plot and Egger's regression test." [NA]

A8: "The review should include a description of the methods used to assess heterogeneity, including Cochran's Q and I^2 statistics." [NA]

A9: "The review should include a description of the methods used to assess the impact of individual studies on the overall results, including sensitivity analysis." [NA]

A10: "The review should include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the evidence, including GRADE." [NA]

A11: "The review should include a description of the methods used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies, including CONSORT." [NA]

P1: "Identify the report as a systematic review." [Yes]

P2: "Title should include the words "systematic review" or "meta-analysis"." [Yes]

P3: "The research question and objectives should be stated." [Yes]

P4: "The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be reported." [Yes]

P5: "The information sources should be reported." [Yes]

P6: "The search strategy should be reported." [Yes]

P7: "The study selection process should be reported." [Yes]

P8: "The list of studies included in the review should be reported." [Yes]

P9: "The study characteristics should be reported." [Yes]

P10: "The risk of bias in individual studies should be reported." [Yes]

P11: "The results of individual studies should be reported." [Yes]

P12: "The synthesis of results should be reported." [NA]

P13: "The risk of bias across studies should be reported." [NA]

P14: "The assessment of heterogeneity should be reported." [NA]

P15: "The assessment of reporting biases should be reported." [NA]

P16: "The assessment of the quality of the evidence should be reported." [NA]

P17: "The characteristics of the included studies should be reported." [Yes]

P18: "The results of the quality assessment should be reported." [Yes]

P19: "The results of the risk of bias assessment should be reported." [Yes]

P20: "The results of the synthesis of studies should be reported." [Yes]

P21: "The conclusions should be reported." [Yes]

P22: "The sources of funding should be reported." [Yes]

P23: "The role of the funders should be reported." [Yes]

P24: "The role of the authors should be reported." [Yes]

P25: "The registration number should be reported." [NA]

P26: "The date of the search should be reported." [Yes]

P27: "The language of the search should be reported." [Yes]

138. Ross 2015: The role of preformed silos in the management of infants with gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1: [Yes], the authors used a systematic search strategy and explicitly stated the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A2: [Yes], the authors used a quality assessment tool to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

A3: [Yes], the authors used a quantitative synthesis method to combine the results of the included studies.

A4: [Yes], the authors used a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis.

A5: [Yes], the authors used a funnel plot to assess publication bias.

A6: [Yes], the authors used a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the meta-analysis results.

A7: [Yes], the authors used a meta-regression analysis to explore potential sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis.

A8: [Yes], the authors used a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the overall quality of evidence.

A9: [Yes], the authors used a quantitative synthesis method to combine the results of the included studies.

A10: [Yes], the authors used a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis.

A11: [Yes], the authors used a funnel plot to assess publication bias.

P1: [Yes], the authors provided a structured summary of the review.

P2: [Yes], the authors provided a rationale for the review.

P3: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P4: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P5: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P6: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P7: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P8: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P9: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P10: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P11: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P12: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P13: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P14: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P18: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P19: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P20: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P21: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA], not applicable for a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P25: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

P26: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the review methods.

P27: [Yes], the authors provided a description of the included studies.

141. Saldaña 2013: Single-Incision Pediatric Endosurgery: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-end-of-line’, ‘missing-squared-brackets-for-yes’

5 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 55.9%)

28 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 83.3%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias."
2. The text clearly states that the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.
3. [[Yes]]

A2:
1. "The search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian."
2. The text clearly states that the search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian.
3. [[Yes]]

A3:
1. "The search strategy was peer reviewed by another librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist."
2. The text does not explicitly state that the search strategy was peer reviewed by another librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist.
3. [No]

A4:
1. "The search strategy was published in the supplementary material."
2. The text does not explicitly state that the search strategy was published in the supplementary material.
3. [No]

A5:
1. "The list of included studies was compared with the list of studies included in previous reviews."
2. The text does not explicitly state that the list of included studies was compared with the list of studies included in previous reviews.
3. [No]

A6:
1. "The characteristics of the included studies were described and summarized."
2. The text clearly states that the characteristics of the included studies were described and summarized.
3. [[Yes]]

A7:
1. "The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and described."
2. The text clearly states that the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and described using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.
3. [[Yes]]

A8:
1. "The methods used to combine the findings of the studies were described and justified."
2. The text clearly states that the methods used to combine the findings of the studies were described and justified.
3. [[Yes]]

A9:
1. "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed."
2. The text does not explicitly state that the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.
3. [No]

A10:
1. "The methods used to assess the quality of the studies were described and justified."
2. The text clearly states that the methods used to assess the quality of the studies were described and justified by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.
3. [[Yes]]

A11:
1. "The likelihood of bias in the review process was assessed."
2. The text does not explicitly state that the likelihood of bias in the review process was assessed.
3. [No]

P1:
1. "Title of the report."
2. The title of the report is "Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of Kawasaki disease."
3. [[Yes]]

P2:
1. "Structured abstract."
2. The report includes a structured abstract.
3. [[Yes]]

P3:
1. "Background/rationale."
2. The report includes a background/rationale section.
3. [[Yes]]

P4:
1. "Objectives."
2. The report includes an objectives section.
3. [[Yes]]

P5:
1. "Methods (including data sources, search strategy, data extraction, and study selection)."
2. The report includes a methods section that describes the data sources, search strategy, data extraction, and study selection.
3. [[Yes]]

P6:
1. "Selection criteria."
2. The report includes a selection criteria section.
3. [[Yes]]

P7:
1. "Risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The report includes a risk of bias in individual studies section.
3. [[Yes]]

P8:
1. "Summary measures."
2. The report includes a summary measures section.
3. [[Yes]]

P9:
1. "Synthesis of results."
2. The report includes a synthesis of results section.
3. [[Yes]]

P10:
1. "Risk of bias across studies."
2. The report includes a risk of bias across studies section.
3. [[Yes]]

P11:
1. "Additional analyses."
2. The report includes an additional analyses section.
3. [[Yes]]

P12:
1. "Conclusions."
2. The report includes a conclusions section.
3. [[Yes]]

P13:
1. "Registration and protocol."
2. The report includes a registration and protocol section.
3. [[Yes]]

P14:
1. "Conflict of interest."
2. The report includes a conflict of interest section.
3. [[Yes]]

P15:
1. "Funding."
2. The report includes a funding section.
3. [[Yes]]

P16:
1. "Study characteristics."
2. The report includes a study characteristics section.
3. [[Yes]]

P17:
1. "Risk of bias within studies."
2. The report includes a risk of bias within studies section.
3. [[Yes]]

P18:
1. "Results of individual studies."
2. The report includes a results of individual studies section.
3. [[Yes]]

P19:
1. "Synthesis of results."
2. The report includes a synthesis of results section.
3. [[Yes]]

P20:
1. "Risk of bias across studies."
2. The report includes a risk of bias across studies section.
3. [[Yes]]

P21:
1. "Additional analysis."
2. The report includes an additional analysis section.
3. [[Yes]]

P22:
1. "Certainty of the evidence."
2. The report includes a certainty of the evidence section.
3. [[Yes]]

P23:
1. "Limitations."
2. The report includes a limitations section.
3. [[Yes]]

P24:
1. "Conclusions."
2. The report includes a conclusions section.
3. [[Yes]]

P25:
1. "Funding."
2. The report includes a funding section.
3. [[Yes]]

P26:
1. "Conflict of interest."
2. The report includes a conflict of interest section.
3. [[Yes]]

P27:
1. "Availability of data and materials."
2. The report includes an availability of data and materials section.
3. [Yes]

143. Scholfield 2016: Laparoscopic Duhamel Procedure for Hirschsprung’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 NA NA 0 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 93.2%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994–2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are not explicitly stated in the text, but the authors mention that they conducted a systematic review of studies published over a period of 20 years that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD.
* Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994–2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD."
* Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two or more individuals.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications that analyzed outcomes for LD or OD pull-through procedures for HD. All studies between January 1994 and December 2014 were included in the search, as the first LD pull-through was described in 1994. Combinations of the key words ‘‘Hirschsprung disease,’’ ‘‘Duhamel,’’ ‘‘pull-through,’’ ‘‘lapa-roscopic,’’ ‘‘minimally invasive’’ and ‘‘open’’ were used."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they conducted a systematic search of publications in PubMed between January 1994 and December 2014 using specific keywords. However, they do not mention whether they searched additional electronic sources or used any supplementary strategies.
* Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "All studies assessing functional outcome for OD and/or LD procedures for HD were analyzed for eligibility, including randomized control trials and observational studies. Exclusion criteria included patients with total colonic aganglionosis, follow-up of less than 6 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, full articles not written in English, and non–peer-reviewed articles. Studies with insufficient operation details or those that did not differentiate between the two approaches were also excluded."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they excluded studies based on language and peer-review status, but they do not mention whether they searched for or included grey literature.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "Eleven articles met our strict inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they included 11 articles in their meta-analysis, but they do not provide a list of included or excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "Four hundred fifty-six patients with HD were included in this review (range, 20--76 patients per study). Of these, 253 patients underwent an OD procedure, and 203 underwent a LD procedure. The median age at surgery in the open group was 6.9 months (range, 4--42 months), compared with 11.3 months (range, 3.1--17.2 months) in the laparoscopic group. Median follow-up in the open group was 64.8 months (range, 14--87.8 months) compared with 61.2 months in the laparoscopic group (range, 39.5--80 months)."
* Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, including the number of patients, age at surgery, and follow-up duration. However, they do not provide information on the interventions or outcomes.
* Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "The risk of bias was assessed and summarized for the 11 articles included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the risk of bias for the included studies, but they do not provide information on the methods of assessment or the results for each study.
* Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD."
* Reasoning: The authors conclude that laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) is superior to open Duhamel (OD) for Hirschsprung's disease (HD), but they do not mention or consider the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
* Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "A cumulative meta-analysis was then performed, to compare the incidence of each outcome in patients who underwent the OD procedure with those who underwent the LD procedure. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method, and mean differences (MDs) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method. A random-effects analysis model was used for all outcomes, as it acknowledges a degree of heterogeneity between studies that makes it well suited for meta-analysis in pediatric surgery."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they used a random-effects analysis model and calculated odds ratios and mean differences for the pooled results, but they do not provide information on the homogeneity of the studies or the clinical appropriateness of combining the findings.
* Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 ."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed statistical heterogeneity using I2, but they do not mention whether they assessed publication bias.
* Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Department of Paediatric Surgery, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom."
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention the source of funding or support for the systematic review or the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Laparoscopic Duhamel Procedure for Hirschsprung’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
* Reasoning: The authors identify the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract: Introduction: Since its introduction in 1956, the Duhamel procedure has been and remains one of the most widely performed for Hirschsprung’s disease (HD). The most significant modification to this procedure has been the incorporation of laparoscopy, while the original principles of the method have been retained. This study compared long-term outcomes for open Duhamel (OD) and laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) procedures for HD, to identify any added advantage of the laparoscopic technique. Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994--2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and mean difference values were calculated for continuous variables. Results: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature."
* Reasoning: The authors provide a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Introduction: Since its introduction in 1956, the Duhamel procedure has been and remains one of the most widely performed for Hirschsprung’s disease (HD). The most significant modification to this procedure has been the incorporation of laparoscopy, while the original principles of the method have been retained. This study compared long-term outcomes for open Duhamel (OD) and laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) procedures for HD, to identify any added advantage of the laparoscopic technique."
* Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Introduction: Since its introduction in 1956, the Duhamel procedure has been and remains one of the most widely performed for Hirschsprung’s disease (HD). The most significant modification to this procedure has been the incorporation of laparoscopy, while the original principles of the method have been retained. This study compared long-term outcomes for open Duhamel (OD) and laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) procedures for HD, to identify any added advantage of the laparoscopic technique."
* Reasoning: The authors do not provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether a review protocol exists or whether the review is registered.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994--2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD. Exclusion criteria included patients with total colonic aganglionosis, follow-up of less than 6 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, full articles not written in English, and non--peer-reviewed articles. Studies with insufficient operation details or those that did not differentiate between the two approaches were also excluded."
* Reasoning: The authors specify study characteristics (PICOS) and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994--2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD. A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications that analyzed outcomes for LD or OD pull-through procedures for HD. Combinations of the key words ‘‘Hirschsprung disease,’’ ‘‘Duhamel,’’ ‘‘pull-through,’’ ‘‘lapa-roscopic,’’ ‘‘minimally invasive’’ and ‘‘open’’ were used."
* Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994--2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD. Of the 132 articles identified, 114 were excluded and 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, including screening, eligibility, and inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not list and define all variables for which data were sought or mention any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "The risk of bias was assessed and summarized for the 11 articles included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the risk of bias for the included studies, but they do not provide information on the methods of assessment or how this information is to be used in data synthesis.
* Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Results: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12)."
* Reasoning: The authors mention the principal summary measures used in the meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Results: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12)."
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
* Response: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they assessed risk of bias across studies.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they conducted any additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994--2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures for HD. Of the 132 articles identified, 114 were excluded and 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Results: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05)."
* Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, including the number of patients, age at surgery, and follow-up duration. However, they do not provide information on the interventions or outcomes.
* Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "The risk of bias was assessed and summarized for the 11 articles included in the meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the risk of bias for the included studies, but they do not provide information on the results of the assessment.
* Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present the results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they assessed risk of bias across studies.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they conducted any additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Conclusions: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature."
* Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome, but they do not consider their relevance to key groups.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Conclusions: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature."
* Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at study and outcome level or at review-level.
* Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Conclusions: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature."
* Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention the sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
* Response: [NA]

144. Sharp 2015: Treatment of Idiopathic Achalasia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 47.5%)

30 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 52.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and are described in the published review." [Yes]

A2: "A list of studies (included and excluded) with characteristics and, where applicable, the reasons for exclusions, is provided." [Yes]

A3: "The primary selection criteria are provided." [Yes]

A4: "The inclusion criteria are provided." [Yes]

A5: "A description of the methods used for assessing risk of bias (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level, and if at the outcome level, whether this was done for each outcome in every study, or for each outcome across all studies, or both) is provided." [Yes]

A6: "An assessment of the risk of bias is included in the results section of the review." [Yes]

A7: "An assessment of the quality of the body of evidence (including the strength of the evidence for each main outcome, the consistency of results, and directness of evidence) is included in the results section of the review." [Yes]

A8: "The methods used for combining study data are provided." [Yes]

A9: "The results of the quantitative synthesis are reported in sufficient detail to permit understanding of the contribution of each study to the effect size." [Yes]

A10: "The results of the quantitative synthesis are reported in sufficient detail to permit replication of the synthesis." [Yes]

A11: "The likelihood of publication bias is discussed." [Yes]

P1: "Title: The title should accurately and concisely describe the article." [Yes]

P2: "Structured abstract: The abstract should summarize the key elements of the article, including the background, methods, results, and conclusions." [Yes]

P3: "Introduction: The introduction should summarize the background and rationale for the review, including the specific research question or questions." [Yes]

P4: "Methods: The methods section should describe the search strategy, including the databases, keywords, and limits used, as well as the study selection criteria and methods for assessing risk of bias." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The methods section should describe the methods for data extraction and synthesis, including the statistical methods used." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The methods section should describe any potential sources of conflict of interest." [Yes]

P7: "Results: The results section should describe the characteristics of the included studies, including the number of studies and participants, and the results of the data synthesis." [Yes]

P8: "Results: The results section should describe the risk of bias in the included studies." [Yes]

P9: "Results: The results section should describe the quality of the body of evidence." [Yes]

P10: "Discussion: The discussion section should interpret the results in the context of the research question, including a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review and the implications of the findings." [Yes]

P11: "Discussion: The discussion section should compare and contrast the findings with those of other relevant studies." [Yes]

P12: "Discussion: The discussion section should describe the limitations of the review." [Yes]

P13: "Discussion: The discussion section should provide a conclusion, including a summary of the main findings and their implications." [Yes]

P14: "Funding: The sources of funding for the research should be described." [NA]

P15: "Competing interests: The competing interests of the authors should be described." [NA]

P16: "Registration: The registration number of the review should be described." [NA]

P17: "Protocol: The methods section should describe the main elements of the protocol, including the research question, search strategy, study selection criteria, methods for assessing risk of bias, and methods for data synthesis." [Yes]

P18: "Search: The search strategy should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P19: "Study selection: The methods used for study selection should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication." [Yes]

P20: "Data items: The data items that will be extracted from the included studies should be described in the methods section." [Yes]

P21: "Risk of bias: The methods used for assessing risk of bias should be described in the methods section." [Yes]

P22: "Data synthesis: The methods used for data synthesis should be described in the methods section." [Yes]

P23: "Summary measures: The methods used for calculating summary measures should be described in the methods section." [Yes]

P24: "Risk of bias in individual studies: The risk of bias in individual studies should be described in the results section." [Yes]

P25: "Results of individual studies: The results of individual studies should be described in the results section." [Yes]

P26: "Synthesis of results: The methods used for synthesizing the results should be described in the results section." [Yes]

P27: "Risk of bias across studies: The risk of bias across studies should be described in the results section." [Yes]

145. Shawyer 2014: The management of postoperative reflux in congenital esophageal atresia–tracheoesophageal fistula: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1: [Yes], the research question and inclusion criteria are clearly defined.

A2: [Yes], the search strategy is described in sufficient detail to allow replication.

A3: [Yes], the list of studies included in the review, with all the information needed to identify and obtain each study, is provided.

A4: [Yes], the characteristics of the included studies are described.

A5: [Yes], the scientific quality of the included studies is assessed and described.

A6: [Yes], the methods used for combining the findings of the studies are described.

A7: [Yes], the likelihood of publication bias is discussed.

A8: [Yes], the methods used for assessing the scientific quality of individual studies are described.

A9: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

A10: [Yes], the methods used for combining the findings of the studies are described.

A11: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P1: [Yes], the title is specific, relevant, and informative, and includes the study design.

P2: [Yes], the abstract includes the study design, methods, main results, and conclusions.

P3: [Yes], the introduction includes a clear statement of the review's objectives and a description of the research question.

P4: [Yes], the methods include a description of the search strategy, including the databases, date range, and search terms used.

P5: [Yes], the methods include a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

P6: [Yes], the methods include a description of the data extraction process.

P7: [Yes], the methods include a description of the quality assessment process.

P8: [Yes], the methods include a description of the statistical methods used.

P9: [Yes], the results include a description of the included studies, including the number of studies and participants.

P10: [Yes], the results include a description of the study characteristics, including the design, setting, and population.

P11: [Yes], the results include a description of the interventions and comparisons.

P12: [Yes], the results include a description of the outcomes.

P13: [Yes], the results include a description of the risk of bias in the included studies.

P14: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the discussion includes a summary of the main findings.

P18: [Yes], the discussion includes a comparison of the findings with those of other studies.

P19: [Yes], the discussion includes a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review.

P20: [Yes], the discussion includes a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice and policy.

P21: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA], not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the funding sources are declared.

P25: [Yes], the conflicts of interest are declared.

P26: [Yes], the registration number is declared.

P27: [Yes], the protocol is available.

147. Shen 2015: Laparoscopic versus open surgery in children with choledochal cysts: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 38.9%)

21 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 56.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review question and inclusion criteria were explicitly described in the methods section." [Yes]

A2: "The search strategy for identifying studies was explicitly described in the methods section, including all databases and search terms used." [Yes]

A3: "The inclusion criteria were applied in a duplicate and independent manner by two or more reviewers." [Yes]

A4: "A list of studies excluded at the full-text level, with reasons for exclusion, was provided." [Yes]

A5: "The characteristics of the included studies were described in detail, including study design, sample size, participant demographics, and interventions." [Yes]

A6: "The risk of bias within individual studies was assessed using a validated tool." [Yes]

A7: "The risk of bias within individual studies was reported in detail, with individual study results and a summary table." [Yes]

A8: "The methods used for combining studies were described in detail, including a description of the statistical methods used." [Yes]

A9: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A10: "The results of the meta-analysis were reported in detail, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency between studies." [Yes]

A11: "The conclusions were based on the results of the meta-analysis and took into account the risk of bias and publication bias." [Yes]

P1: "Title: The title of the report should accurately and concisely describe the study design, population, and main outcome measures." [Yes]

P2: "Structured Abstract: The abstract should provide the context or background, study methods, main findings, and conclusions of the study." [Yes]

P3: "Introduction: The introduction should describe the rationale for the study and its objectives." [Yes]

P4: "Methods: The methods should provide sufficient detail to allow replication of the study by others." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The methods should include a description of the study design, setting, participants, interventions, and outcomes." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The methods should include a description of the statistical analyses performed." [Yes]

P7: "Methods: The methods should include a description of any potential sources of bias or confounding and how they were addressed." [Yes]

P8: "Methods: The methods should include a description of ethical approval and informed consent procedures." [Yes]

P9: "Results: The results should be reported in sufficient detail to allow replication of the study by others." [Yes]

P10: "Results: The results should include a description of the study population, interventions, and outcomes, including any subgroup analyses." [Yes]

P11: "Results: The results should include a description of the statistical analyses performed and the results of those analyses." [Yes]

P12: "Results: The results should include a description of any potential sources of bias or confounding and their impact on the study findings." [Yes]

P13: "Discussion: The discussion should interpret the results in the context of the study objectives and the existing literature." [Yes]

P14: "Discussion: The discussion should describe the strengths and limitations of the study." [Yes]

P15: "Discussion: The discussion should include a summary of the main findings and their implications." [Yes]

P16: "Discussion: The discussion should include a description of any potential sources of bias or confounding and their impact on the study findings." [Yes]

P17: "Discussion: The discussion should include a description of the limitations of the study and the implications of those limitations." [Yes]

P18: "Discussion: The discussion should include a description of the generalizability of the study findings." [Yes]

P19: "Discussion: The discussion should include a description of the implications of the study findings for clinical practice or policy." [Yes]

P20: "Discussion: The discussion should include a description of the implications of the study findings for future research." [Yes]

P21: "Funding: The sources of funding for the study should be reported." [NA]

P22: "Conflicts of Interest: All conflicts of interest for study authors should be reported." [NA]

P23: "Registration: The registration number and date of registration for clinical trials should be reported." [NA]

P24: "Protocol: The study protocol should be reported, including any amendments made during the study." [NA]

P25: "Availability of Data: The availability of data and materials should be reported, including any restrictions on access." [NA]

P26: "Software: Any software used in the study should be reported, including the version number and any relevant citations." [NA]

P27: "Supplementary Materials: Any supplementary materials should be reported, including the location and availability of those materials." [NA]

148. Siddiqui 2011: A meta-analysis of outcomes after open and laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

1 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

11 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
> "The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
- The full text does not provide any information about an 'a priori' design.
> [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
> "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."
- The full text does not provide any information about duplicate study selection and data extraction.
> [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
> "At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided."
- The full text provides information about the literature search, including the databases used (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and the keywords used. However, the full search strategy is not provided.
> [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
> "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc."
- The full text does not provide any information about the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature.
> [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
> "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."
- The full text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
> [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
> "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."
- The full text provides a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
> [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
> "'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant."
- The full text does not provide any information about the assessment and documentation of the scientific quality of the included studies.
> [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
> "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
- The full text does not provide any information about the use of the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
> [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
> "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?)."
- This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
> "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."
- This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
> "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."
- The full text does not provide any information about the conflict of interest.
> [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
> "The objective of this study is to meta-analyse the published literature comparing outcomes after ONF and LNF for childhood GORD."
- The full text identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
> [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
> The full text provides a structured abstract with the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.
> [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
> The full text provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
> [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
> The full text provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
> [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
> The full text does not provide any information about a review protocol or registration.
> [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
> The full text provides information about the eligibility criteria, including study characteristics and report characteristics.
> [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
> The full text provides information about the information sources and the date last searched.
> [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
> The full text provides the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
> [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
> The full text provides the process for selecting studies.
> [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
> The full text does not provide any information about the data collection process.
> [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
> The full text does not provide any information about the data items.
> [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
> The full text does not provide any information about the risk of bias in individual studies.
> [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
> The full text does not provide any information about the principal summary measures.
> [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
> The full text provides the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
> [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
> The full text provides the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study and the citations.
> [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not provide an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies.
> [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
> This question is not applicable as the full text does not include a meta-analysis.
> [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
> The full text provides a summary of the main findings and considers their relevance to key groups.
> [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
> The full text discusses limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level.
> [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
> The full text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
> [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
> The full text does not provide any information about the sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
> [No]

149. Siminas 2015: Current Surgical Management of Pediatric Idiopathic Constipation

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 0 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 38.5%)

20 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 56.9%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1. "The study selection process was performed independently by two reviewers (J.P. and J.M.B.) using a standardized form." [Yes]

A2. "The study selection process was performed independently by two reviewers (J.P. and J.M.B.) using a standardized form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer (J.M.C.)." [Yes]

A3. "The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a medical librarian (J.M.C.)." [Yes]

A4. "The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a medical librarian (J.M.C.)." [Yes]

A5. "The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a medical librarian (J.M.C.) and was peer reviewed by another librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist." [No]

A6. "The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a medical librarian (J.M.C.) and was peer reviewed by another librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist." [No]

A7. "The list of included studies was screened for additional studies that were not identified by the original search strategy." [Yes]

A8. "The list of included studies was screened for additional studies that were not identified by the original search strategy." [Yes]

A9. "Not applicable." [NA]

A10. "Not applicable." [NA]

A11. "Not applicable." [NA]

P1. "An explicit statement of the research question or objectives was provided." [Yes]

P2. "The inclusion and exclusion criteria were described." [Yes]

P3. "The information sources, including databases and other sources (e.g., trial registries, reference lists), were specified." [Yes]

P4. "The search strategy, including the keywords and search terms, was provided." [Yes]

P5. "The study selection process, including the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, was described." [Yes]

P6. "The study selection process, including the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, was described using a flow diagram." [Yes]

P7. "The list of studies included in the review, including any conference abstracts, was provided." [Yes]

P8. "The characteristics of the included studies were described, including study design, sample size, and characteristics of study participants." [Yes]

P9. "The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using a validated tool." [Yes]

P10. "The results of the risk of bias assessment were provided in a table or figure." [Yes]

P11. "The results of the risk of bias assessment were described in the text." [Yes]

P12. "The results of the review were described and summarized." [Yes]

P13. "The results of the review were presented in a table or figure." [Yes]

P14. "The confidence in the cumulative estimate of the effect was assessed using a validated tool." [NA]

P15. "The confidence in the cumulative estimate of the effect was described in the text." [NA]

P16. "The confidence in the cumulative estimate of the effect was presented in a table or figure." [NA]

P17. "The potential sources of heterogeneity were explored." [Yes]

P18. "The potential sources of heterogeneity were described in the text." [Yes]

P19. "The limitations of the review were discussed." [Yes]

P20. "The conclusions were based on the results of the review and were linked to the research question." [Yes]

P21. "Not applicable." [NA]

P22. "Not applicable." [NA]

P23. "Not applicable." [NA]

P24. "The review was registered in a database of systematic reviews." [No]

P25. "The protocol for the review was published." [No]

P26. "The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement." [Yes]

P27. "The review was peer reviewed by at least one person who was not an author of the review." [No]

150. Sklar 2014: Laparoscopic Versus Open Reduction of Intussusception in Children: A Retrospective Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* "We performed a retrospective review of all children with intussusception who required operative reduction at our institution over a 12-year time period. We also performed a meta-analysis to combine our data with the published literature."
* The review did not provide an 'a priori' design, but it did perform a meta-analysis to combine their data with published literature.
* [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases" [...] " Two researchers independently screened the title and abstract of identified articles" [...] " They then assessed the full-text articles for relevance" [...] " The researchers discussed any discrepancies to reach a mutual consensus regarding each study’s eligibility for inclusion."
* The review had two researchers independently search, screen, and assess articles for eligibility.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* "To identify all publications comparing LAP versus open surgery for intussusception in children, two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library" [...] " We only included comparative studies in the pediatric population (0--18 years of age), excluding letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data. We did not exclude studies based on language, publication period, or sample size."
* The review searched four electronic databases and included studies based on language, publication period, and sample size.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* "We only included comparative studies in the pediatric population (0--18 years of age), excluding letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data. We did not exclude studies based on language, publication period, or sample size."
* The review did not exclude studies based on publication status, language, or sample size.
* [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* "We identified 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction."
* The review provided a list of included studies, but not a list of excluded studies.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* "We identified a total of 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction. The demographics and outcomes of both groups are presented in Table 1."
* The review provided a table with the demographics and outcomes of both groups.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies. This scale comprises 12 items, with a maximum total score of 24. Higher scores in-dicate better methodological quality."
* The review assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria.
* [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* "We applied the MINORS criteria to each study and found that all studies were fair to moderate in quality. Weaknesses in most studies were retrospective design, unblinded assessment of outcomes, inadequate or unstated follow-up period, and unstated loss to follow-up. Strengths of the studies included similar comparison groups and robust statistical analyses."
* The review applied the MINORS criteria to each study and considered the results in formulating conclusions.
* [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* "Address correspondence to: Ahmed Nasr, MD, MSc, FRCSC Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6 Canada E-mail: anasr@cheo.on.ca"
* The review did not provide information on potential sources of support.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Laparoscopic Versus Open Reduction of Intussusception in Children: A Retrospective Review and Meta-analysis"
* The review identified the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Background: Intestinal intussusception is a frequent cause of bowel obstruction in children. Initial treatment involves pneumatic reduction. If this fails, operative reduction is indicated. There is controversy regarding use of the laparoscopic (LAP) versus the conventional open approach. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all children with intussusception who required operative reduction at our institution over a 12-year time period. We also performed a meta-analysis to combine our data with the published literature. Results: We identified 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction. Operative times were not statistically different. The rate of overall complications was not statistically different, with 1 of 5 (20%) and 7 of 23 (30%) having complications in the LAP and open groups, respectively. Mean length of stay was 3.8 -- 2.1 days in both the LAP and open groups, with no significant difference. Our meta-analysis identified five retrospective studies comparing LAP and open techniques for reduction of intussusception. We did not find a significant difference between groups with respect to operative time, overall complication rates, or re-operation rates. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group. Conclusions: LAP reduction of intussusception is a safe and feasible alternative to the open approach. Length of stay may be shorter in the LAP group."
* The review provided a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "I ntussusception in children may result in significant morbidity and mortality if not treated in a timely fashion. If initial treatment with enema reductions is not successful, patients require operative intervention. Controversy exists as to whether the laparoscopic (LAP) operative approach is as safe and effective as the standard open approach."
* The review described the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "There were two main objectives for this study. First, we aimed to retrospectively review our institution’s experience with the surgical treatment of intussusception, comparing the LAP and open approaches. Second, and most importantly, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, combining our data with existing literature, in order to identify any differences in outcome measures across all identified comparative studies."
* The review provided an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Not applicable as the review did not provide a protocol or registration number.
* [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "To identify all publications comparing LAP versus open surgery for intussusception in children, two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’ We only included comparative studies in the pediatric population (0--18 years of age), excluding letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data. We did not exclude studies based on language, publication period, or sample size."
* The review specified study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "To identify all publications comparing LAP versus open surgery for intussusception in children, two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’"
* The review described all information sources in the search.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Not provided in the text.
* [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases" [...] " Two researchers independently screened the title and abstract of identified articles" [...] " They then assessed the full-text articles for relevance" [...] " The researchers discussed any discrepancies to reach a mutual consensus regarding each study’s eligibility for inclusion."
* The review stated the process for selecting studies.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Not provided in the text.
* [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Not provided in the text.
* [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies. This scale comprises 12 items, with a maximum total score of 24. Higher scores in-dicate better methodological quality."
* The review described methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "We identified 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction."
* The review gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
* [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "We identified a total of 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction. The demographics and outcomes of both groups are presented in Table 1."
* The review presented characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies. This scale comprises 12 items, with a maximum total score of 24. Higher scores in-dicate better methodological quality."
* The review presented data on risk of bias of each study.
* [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis.
* [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "Our meta-analysis identified five retrospective studies comparing LAP and open techniques for reduction of intussusception. We did not find a significant difference between groups with respect to operative time, overall complication rates, or re-operation rates. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group. LAP reduction of intussusception is a safe and feasible alternative to the open approach. Length of stay may be shorter in the LAP group."
* The review summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "The current literature on this topic is limited to retrospective studies, which are inherently limited by methodological bias. Most retrospective designs do not use blinding for outcome assessment, and many do not use a standardized protocol for data collection. Furthermore, retrospective studies are often limited by selection bias, whereby patients’ baseline characteristics may affect their intervention assignment."
* The review discussed limitations at study and outcome level.
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "Our data suggest that LAP reduction of intussusception is as technically feasible, safe, and efficacious as the open approach and may even be beneficial in shortening LOS. Future directions for study should include multicentered prospective studies. We are hopeful that the results of this study will encourage further investigation in this regard."
* The review provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Not provided in the text.
* [No]

151. Sola 2010: Peritoneal Drainage versus Laparotomy for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Intestinal Perforation: A Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA 0 1 1 0 0 NA NA 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

38 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 99.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. "A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
- The full text does not provide any information about an 'a priori' design.
- Response: [No]

A2. "A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work."
- The full text does not provide any information about duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. "A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary)."
- The full text provides information about the literature search: "We performed a systematic review from the published literature. The Ovid (Ovid Technologies New York, NY) and Medline search engines were used to examine both the Pubmed and Cochrane libraries from January 2000 to December 2008. Abstracts were screened and the bibliographies examined to identify any additional trials."
- Response: [Yes]

A4. "A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose."
- The full text provides information about the inclusion of grey literature: "The Ovid (Ovid Technologies New York, NY) and Medline search engines were used to examine both the Pubmed and Cochrane libraries from January 2000 to December 2008. Abstracts were screened and the bibliographies examined to identify any additional trials."
- Response: [Yes]

A5. "A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”"
- The full text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. "A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above."
- The full text provides information about the characteristics of the included studies: "Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies. The sample size of the trials ranged from 65 to 156 patients per trial for a combined 523 participants for comparison of PD (273) and LAP (250)."
- Response: [Yes]

A7. "A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable)."
- The full text does not provide information about the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. "A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7."
- The full text does not provide information about the use of the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. "A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions."
- The full text does not provide information about the methods used to combine the findings of studies.
- Response: [NA]

A10. "A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”."
- The full text does not provide information about the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. "A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies."
- The full text does not provide information about the conflict of interest.
- Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. "P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."
- The full text identifies the report as a systematic review: "RESEARCH REVIEW Peritoneal Drainage versus Laparotomy for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Intestinal Perforation: A Meta-Analysis"
- Response: [Yes]

P2. "P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number."
- The full text provides a structured summary, but it does not include information about the study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, and systematic review registration number.
- Response: [No]

P3. "P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."
- The full text provides a rationale for the review: "The surgical management of premature neonates with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) or isolated intestinal perforation (IP) remains controversial. Laparotomy (LAP) in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is associated with 35% to 53% mortality [1, 2] and poor neurodevelopmental outcome [3]. Bedside peritoneal drainage (PD) performed under local anesthesia was first reported by Ein et al. [4]) as an alternative to LAP in five infants weighing <1600 g deemed too sick for operation due to sepsis and physiological instability. Since its introduction, PD has been utilized as an initial stabilizing procedure and, even as definitive treatment, becoming an alternative to LAP in premature neonates with NEC and IP [5–7]."
- Response: [Yes]

P4. "P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."
- The full text provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed: "To determine whether peritoneal drain (PD) or laparotomy (LAP) is the most effective intervention in premature neonates with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) or intestinal perforation (IP)."
- Response: [Yes]

P5. "P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."
- The full text does not provide information about a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. "P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
- The full text does not provide information about the eligibility criteria.
- Response: [No]

P7. "P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched."
- The full text provides information about the information sources: "The Ovid (Ovid Technologies New York, NY) and Medline search engines were used to examine both the Pubmed and Cochrane libraries from January 2000 to December 2008."
- Response: [Yes]

P8. "P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
- The full text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
- Response: [No]

P9. "P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."
- The full text does not provide information about the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [No]

P10. "P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
- The full text does not provide information about the data collection process.
- Response: [No]

P11. "P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
- The full text does not provide information about the data items.
- Response: [No]

P12. "P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
- The full text does not provide information about the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. "P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
- The full text does not provide information about the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. "P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis."
- The full text does not provide information about the synthesis of results.
- Response: [NA]

P15. "P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."
- The full text does not provide information about the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [NA]

P16. "P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified."
- The full text does not provide information about additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. "P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
- The full text provides information about the study selection: "Systematic review of the literature identified 12 trials that were potentially applicable for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these potential studies, five met selection criteria [9–12] and seven were excluded [13–19] due to small sample size and retrospective design."
- Response: [Yes]

P18. "P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
- The full text provides information about the study characteristics: "Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies. The sample size of the trials ranged from 65 to 156 patients per trial for a combined 523 participants for comparison of PD (273) and LAP (250)."
- Response: [Yes]

P19. "P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)."
- The full text does not provide information about the risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. "P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot."
- The full text does not provide information about the results of individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P21. "P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."
- The full text does not provide information about the synthesis of results.
- Response: [NA]

P22. "P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."
- The full text does not provide information about the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [NA]

P23. "P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)."
- The full text does not provide information about additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. "P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
- The full text provides a summary of evidence: "Our systematic review of prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 demonstrated that PD was associated with a statistically significant excess mortality of 55%."
- Response: [Yes]

P25. "P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
- The full text discusses limitations: "In conclusion, review of the five prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 refutes the hypothesis that PD is superior to LAP. In addition, this meta-analysis demonstrates a statistically significant excess mortality of 55% associated with PD. Our results do not support the conclusion by recent individual studies that the type of operation does not influence survival. Finally, we recommend that pediatric surgeons must individually assess and select patients with NEC and IP for optimal surgical therapy."
- Response: [Yes]

P26. "P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."
- The full text provides conclusions: "In conclusion, review of the five prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 refutes the hypothesis that PD is superior to LAP. In addition, this meta-analysis demonstrates a statistically significant excess mortality of 55% associated with PD. Our results do not support the conclusion by recent individual studies that the type of operation does not influence survival. Finally, we recommend that pediatric surgeons must individually assess and select patients with NEC and IP for optimal surgical therapy."
- Response: [Yes]

P27. "P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
- The full text does not provide information about the funding.
- Response: [No]

152. Symeonidis 2016: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for major urological procedures in the pediatric population: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA


LLM response

9 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 36.1%)

29 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 46%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: [Yes] "The reviewers used the AMSTAR tool to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews."

A2: [Yes] "The reviewers used the PRISMA tool to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews."

A3: [Yes] "The reviewers used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the methodological quality of the randomized controlled trials."

A4: [Yes] "The reviewers used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of the observational studies."

A5: [Yes] "The reviewers used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations."

A6: [Yes] "The reviewers used the Jadad scale to assess the methodological quality of the randomized controlled trials."

A7: [Yes] "The reviewers used the Delphi list to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews."

A8: [Yes] "The reviewers used the QUOROM tool to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews."

A9: [NA] "The reviewers did not combine data in quantitative synthesis as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

A10: [Yes] "The reviewers assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's test."

A11: [NA] "The reviewers did not assess the impact of conflicts of interest as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P1: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a structured abstract that included the following sections: background, methods, results, and conclusions."

P2: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear introduction that stated the review's objectives, the research question, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria."

P3: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear methods section that included the following elements: search strategy, data extraction, quality assessment, and data synthesis."

P4: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear results section that included the following elements: search results, study characteristics, and results of quality assessment and data synthesis."

P5: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear discussion section that included the following elements: summary of evidence, limitations of the review, and implications for practice and research."

P6: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear conclusion section that summarized the review's findings and implications for practice and research."

P7: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a list of included studies with complete bibliographic information and justification for inclusion."

P8: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the search strategy, including the databases, search terms, and date limits."

P9: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract them."

P10: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the quality assessment process, including the tools used and the criteria for judging study quality."

P11: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the data synthesis process, including the methods used to combine and summarize the data."

P12: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the study characteristics, including the number, design, and quality of the included studies."

P13: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the results of the quality assessment, including the overall quality of the evidence and the quality of individual studies."

P14: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a table of study characteristics as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P15: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a table of study quality as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P16: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a table of results as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P17: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the limitations of the review, including the limitations of the evidence and the review process."

P18: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the implications for practice, including the relevance of the review findings to clinical practice and the potential impact on patient outcomes."

P19: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the implications for research, including the need for future research to address the limitations of the evidence and the review process."

P20: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the funding sources for the included studies and the review itself."

P21: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a statement about potential conflicts of interest as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P22: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a statement about the registration of the review as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P23: [NA] "The reviewers did not provide a statement about the protocol for the review as this was a systematic review without a meta-analysis."

P24: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the search results, including the number of records identified, the number of records screened, the number of records excluded, and the reasons for exclusion."

P25: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the data items, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract them."

P26: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the statistical methods used, including the methods used to combine and summarize the data."

P27: [Yes] "The reviewers provided a clear description of the results of the data synthesis, including the overall findings and the findings for individual outcomes."

153. Tan 2016: Screening and Treatment of Intestinal Rotational Abnormalities in Heterotaxy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 0 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: “This review was performed according to a protocol that was designed a priori and recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.”
* Reasoning: The review was conducted according to a pre-determined protocol, indicating that an 'a priori' design was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: “Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus. Full-text copies of potentially eligible papers were obtained, and the same 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant data on study characteristics and the outcomes of interest. Inconsistencies were discussed by the authors and consensus reached.”
* Reasoning: Two authors independently reviewed the abstracts and extracted data, reaching consensus on potential relevance and study characteristics.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: “Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched electronically on April 24, 2014, and then updated on May 11, 2015; the search was limited to reports published after January 1, 1980. One author and 2 librarians were involved in the search, and combinations of the relevant medical subject heading terms, key words, and word variants for ‘isomerism,’ ‘heterotaxy,’ ‘situs ambiguous,’ ‘Ivemark,’ and ‘malrotation’ were used. The search was restricted to literature written in English. The Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies (ie, MOOSE) guidelines were followed. The study was registered with the PROSPERO data-base (CRD42014009130) in June 2014.”
* Reasoning: The review searched four electronic databases, used relevant medical subject heading terms, key words, and word variants, and restricted the search to literature written in English.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: “The search was restricted to literature written in English.”
* Reasoning: The review restricted the search to literature written in English, indicating that grey literature was not included in the search strategy.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: “Of those, full text of 50 articles were assessed with respect to their eligibility for inclusion (Figure 1), studies that were excluded are listed with their reasons for exclusion in Table I (available at www.jpeds.com), including 1 study that was excluded after peer-review process.”
* Reasoning: The review provided a list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion.
* Response: [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: “The general characteristics of these studies are reported in Table II.”
* Reasoning: The review provided a table summarizing the general characteristics of the included studies.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: “Quality assessment of the included studies, performed by use of the NOS for cohort and case-control studies, is shown in Table III (available at www.jpeds.com). The quality of the 24 studies was judged as ‘low’ in 8, ‘medium’ in 10, and ‘high’ in 6.”
* Reasoning: The review assessed the scientific quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as ‘the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.’ Cannot score ‘yes’ for this question if scored ‘no’ for question A7.

* Quote: “The quality of the 24 studies was judged as ‘low’ in 8, ‘medium’ in 10, and ‘high’ in 6. The majority of the included studies showed an overall good rate with regard to the selection and outcome but not for the comparability. The main weaknesses of these studies were their retrospective nature, small sample size, and lack of ascertainment of individual outcomes. Furthermore, most studies had a relatively short period of follow-up after birth.”
* Reasoning: The review considered the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions and explicitly stated the limitations of the studies.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate ‘yes’ if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score ‘no’. Score ‘yes’ if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
* Reasoning: The review explicitly stated that there were no conflicts of interest.
* Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: “Screening and Treatment of Intestinal Rotational Abnormalities in Heterotaxy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”
* Reasoning: The review clearly identified itself as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: “Objective: To assess the role of screening and prophylactic surgery for intestinal rotational abnormalities (IRAs) in asymptomatic patients with heterotaxy. Study design: PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl were searched electronically to determine the overall incidence of IRAs in heterotaxy; the detection rate of IRAs associated with screening; the incidence of midgut volvulus in patients without screening; and the incidence of morbidity and mortality after prophylactic and emergency Ladd procedures to treat IRAs in heterotaxy. Relevant data were computed with a meta-analysis of proportions. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.”
* Reasoning: The review provided a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, and results.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: “Heterotaxy is a congenital anomaly characterized by abnormal cardiovisceral left-to-right axis arrangement, with an incidence reported to be between 1 in 6000 to 1 in 20 000 live birth. According to the International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease, heterotaxy is a spectrum of disorders with many variations in the way internal organs are lateralized, hence the term situs ambiguus, because it does not include situs solitus (normal intra-abdominal anatomy) or situs inversus (complete mirror-image of the intra-abdominal anatomy). Conventionally, heterotaxy can be subclassified into right atrial isomerism or left atrial isomerism, which refers to the abnormal developmental symmetry in which morphologic structures that normally develop on one side, either right or left, are found on both sides of the body, and it is the currently accepted term used to describe hearts with isomeric atria and atrial appendages. Right atrial isomerism typically is, but not invariably, associated with asplenia (42%) and left atrial isomerism with polysplenia (55%). In both cases, patients may have associated intestinal rotational abnormalities (IRAs), which can lead to development of acute midgut volvulus. Heterotaxy is a heterogeneous syndrome associated with a wide range of cardiac anomalies (eg, systemic or pulmonary venous anomalies, hypoplastic ventricle, and ventriculoarterial anomalies), and it has a significant rate of mortality despite early cardiac interventions. The issue lies within the fact that treating asymptomatic IRA in patients with heterotaxy could eliminate the risk of a catastrophic midgut volvulus, but at the same time, it could potentially put a stable patient with major cardiac anomalies at risks because of the general anesthesia and surgical procedure involved. The incidence of IRA with heterotaxy is poorly defined in the literature, and it has been variably reported between 33% and 90%. This inci- dence is significantly greater than what is reported, from 0.5% to 4%, in the normal population with malrotation. IRA increases the risk of midgut volvulus, which can potentially result in significant bowel loss, intestinal insufficiency, and death. The gold standard surgery to manage IRA and midgut volvulus is the Ladd procedure. At present, there is no international consensus whether screening this vulnerable group of children for IRA and performing a prophylactic Ladd procedure in asymptomatic cases should be recommended. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the role of screening for IRA and the indication for a prophylactic surgery in asymptomatic patients born with heterotaxy.”
* Reasoning: The review provided a clear rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: “Objective: To assess the role of screening and prophylactic surgery for intestinal rotational abnormalities (IRAs) in asymptomatic patients with heterotaxy.”
* Reasoning: The review provided an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: “This review was performed according to a protocol that was designed a priori and recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The study was registered with the PROSPERO data-base (CRD42014009130) in June 2014.”
* Reasoning: The review indicated that a protocol existed and provided registration information.
* Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: “Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched electronically on April 24, 2014, and then updated on May 11, 2015; the search was limited to reports published after January 1, 1980. One author and 2 librarians were involved in the search, and combinations of the relevant medical subject heading terms, key words, and word variants for ‘isomerism,’ ‘heterotaxy,’ ‘situs ambiguous,’ ‘Ivemark,’ and ‘malrotation’ were used. The search was restricted to literature written in English.”
* Reasoning: The review specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: “Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched electronically on April 24, 2014, and then updated on May 11, 2015.”
* Reasoning: The review described the information sources used in the search.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: “Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus. Full-text copies of potentially eligible papers were obtained, and the same 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant data on study characteristics and the outcomes of interest. Inconsistencies were discussed by the authors and consensus reached. Exclusion criteria were as follows: papers not related to the topic, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 subjects, and prenatal studies without postnatal outcomes. If more than one study was published for the same cohort with identical endpoints, only the report containing the most comprehensive information on the population was included to avoid overlapping populations.”
* Reasoning: The review described the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: “Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus. Full-text copies of potentially eligible papers were obtained, and the same 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant data on study characteristics and the outcomes of interest. Inconsistencies were discussed by the authors and consensus reached.”
* Reasoning: The review described the method of data extraction from reports.
* Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: “Quality assessment of the included studies, performed by use of the NOS for cohort and case-control studies, is shown in Table III (available at www.jpeds.com). The quality of the 24 studies was judged as ‘low’ in 8, ‘medium’ in 10, and ‘high’ in 6.”
* Reasoning: The review described the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not describe methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: “Of those, full text of 50 articles were assessed with respect to their eligibility for inclusion (Figure 1), studies that were excluded are listed with their reasons for exclusion in Table I (available at www.jpeds.com), including 1 study that was excluded after peer-review process.”
* Reasoning: The review provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: “The general characteristics of these studies are reported in Table II.”
* Reasoning: The review provided the characteristics of the included studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: “Quality assessment of the included studies, performed by use of the NOS for cohort and case-control studies, is shown in Table III (available at www.jpeds.com). The quality of the 24 studies was judged as ‘low’ in 8, ‘medium’ in 10, and ‘high’ in 6.”
* Reasoning: The review presented data on risk of bias of each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not present results of each meta-analysis done.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not give results of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: “The main findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis are that the screen-detected incidences of IRA and acute midgut volvulus were significantly greater in heterotaxy than the normal population. Prophylactic Ladd procedure was associated with less morbidity and mortality compared with emergency surgery. A long-term prospective randomized trial is needed to define the indication for screening and prophylactic treatment of IRA in heterotaxy.”
* Reasoning: The review summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: “The main weaknesses of these studies were their retrospective nature, small sample size, and lack of ascertainment of individual outcomes. Furthermore, most studies had a relatively short period of follow-up after birth.”
* Reasoning: The review discussed limitations at study and outcome level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: “The main findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis are that the screen-detected incidences of IRA and acute midgut volvulus were significantly greater in heterotaxy than the normal population. Prophylactic Ladd procedure was associated with less morbidity and mortality compared with emergency surgery. A long-term prospective randomized trial is needed to define the indication for screening and prophylactic treatment of IRA in heterotaxy.”
* Reasoning: The review provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
* Reasoning: The review explicitly stated that there were no conflicts of interest.
* Response: [Yes]

154. Terui 2015: Surgical approaches for neonatal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 0 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.3%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

* Quote: "A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Studies that compared surgical approaches for neonatal CDH were selected."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are not explicitly stated in the text, but the search strategy and selection criteria are described.
* Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

* Quote: "Two individual authors extracted data from each selected study."
* Reasoning: The text states that two authors extracted data, but it does not explicitly mention duplicate study selection or a consensus procedure for disagreements.
* Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

* Quote: "Systematic searches of English-language articles were conducted by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, including all records dated from their first entries to March 2015. When searching MEDLINE, we used the term ‘‘congenital diaphragmatic hernia,’’ as well as terms related to surgical methods, including ‘‘laparotomy,’’ ‘‘transabdomi*,’’ ‘‘abdomi*,’’ ‘‘thoracotomy,’’ ‘‘transthoracic*,’’ ‘‘open,’’ ‘‘laparoscop*,’’ ‘‘thoracoscop*,’’ ‘‘minimally invasive,’’ and ‘‘minimal access.’’ The term ‘‘congenital diaphragmatic hernia’’ was used when searching the Cochrane Library."
* Reasoning: The text describes the search strategy and the databases used, including keywords and MESH terms.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

* Quote: "Electronic data sources and search planning. Systematic searches of English-language articles were conducted by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, including all records dated from their first entries to March 2015."
* Reasoning: The text does not explicitly state that grey literature was searched or that reports were included regardless of publication status.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

* Quote: "Results. Study selection. Of 264 search results, 226 studies were excluded based on titles and abstracts. After screening the remaining 38 studies based on their full texts, 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis [8–21]. Furthermore, eight observational studies [14–21] published between 2009 and 2013 were included in the quantitative synthesis."
* Reasoning: The text provides a list of included studies, but not a list of excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

* Quote: "Description of included studies. There were five systematic reviews [8–12], including the Interventional Procedure Guidance by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [9]. Of these systematic reviews, four included both neonates and infants/childhood cases [9–12], while only one systematic review was specific to neonates [8]. However, this neonate-specific systematic review included only three studies; the five newly reported studies were not included."
* Reasoning: The text provides some characteristics of the included studies, but not in an aggregated form as required by the AMSTAR criteria.
* Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.

* Quote: "Assessing quality of evidence. The quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [7]. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence is rated as high (further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect), moderate (further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate), low (further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate), or very low (any estimate of effect is very uncertain). The analyses were performed using GRADEpro software version 3.6 (http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/gradepro), as also provided by the Cochrane Collaboration."
* Reasoning: The text states that the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.

* Quote: "Discussion. The present systematic review was designed to establish the optimal surgical approaches for neonatal CDH. Although some systematic reviews regarding CDH have been published previously, this is currently the most up-to-date review that is specific to neonatal CDH. As compared with the previous report on this subject [8], this review includes five additional studies. Furthermore, the present review is the first to rate the quality of evidence according to the GRADE system, which has been broadly accepted."
* Reasoning: The text discusses the quality of evidence and its implications for the conclusions of the review.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

* Quote: "Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Intractable Diseases)."
* Reasoning: The text states the source of funding for the review.
* Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Surgical approaches for neonatal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
* Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: See full text.
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Introduction. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a malformation characterized by a defect of the posterolateral diaphragm, intrathoracic herniation of abdominal viscera, and varying degrees of pulmonary hypoplasia and pulmonary hypertension [1]. Although survival in cases of CDH has improved during the past decades, the treatment of severe cases remains challenging, and a considerable number of survivors experience long-term morbidity [2, 3]."
* Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Purpose. The optimal surgical approach for neonatal con-genital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery (ES) for neonatal CDH."
* Reasoning: The objectives of the review are explicitly stated with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration information.
* Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Selection criteria for included trials. To be included in this meta-analysis, each study had to fulfill the following criteria: (1) the article type was not a review, case report, or letter; (2) all candidates were neonates; and (3) ES and OS were compared. ES included laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery, while OS included open abdominal surgery and open chest surgery. There were no exclusions based on patient numbers or duration of follow-up."
* Reasoning: The text specifies the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "Electronic data sources and search planning. Systematic searches of English-language articles were conducted by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, including all records dated from their first entries to March 2015."
* Reasoning: The text describes the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Results. Study selection. Of 264 search results, 226 studies were excluded based on titles and abstracts. After screening the remaining 38 studies based on their full texts, 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis [8–21]. Furthermore, eight observational studies [14–21] published between 2009 and 2013 were included in the quantitative synthesis."
* Reasoning: The text describes the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Data abstraction from included trials. Two individual authors extracted data from each selected study. The following items were collected: (1) authors’ names and year of publication, (2) title of the published study, (3) journal in which the study was published, (4) country and year of the study, (5) whether the study was single-center or multicenter, (6) whether the study had a prospective or retrospective design, (7) testing sample size, (8) patient age, (9) whether consecutive patients were included, (10) surgical approaches in both arms of the trial, (11) method of assigning patients to the two groups, (12) number of patients receiving each surgical approach, (13) number of patients who failed the allocated treatment (conversion to OS), (14) postoperative follow-up period, (15) number of postoperative deaths, and (16) number of patients who developed recurrence. After completing the data abstraction, disagreements were resolved by discussion."
* Reasoning: The text describes the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
* Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Assessing quality of evidence. The quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [7]. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence is rated as high (further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect), moderate (further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate), low (further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate), or very low (any estimate of effect is very uncertain). The analyses were performed using GRADEpro software version 3.6 (http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/gradepro), as also provided by the Cochrane Collaboration."
* Reasoning: The text describes the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Results. Study selection. Of 264 search results, 226 studies were excluded based on titles and abstracts. After screening the remaining 38 studies based on their full texts, 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis [8–21]. Furthermore, eight observational studies [14–21] published between 2009 and 2013 were included in the quantitative synthesis."
* Reasoning: The text gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Description of included studies. There were five systematic reviews [8–12], including the Interventional Procedure Guidance by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [9]. Of these systematic reviews, four included both neonates and infants/childhood cases [9–12], while only one systematic review was specific to neonates [8]. However, this neonate-specific systematic review included only three studies; the five newly reported studies were not included."
* Reasoning: The text presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Assessing quality of evidence. The quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [7]. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence is rated as high (further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect), moderate (further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate), low (further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate), or very low (any estimate of effect is very uncertain). The analyses were performed using GRADEpro software version 3.6 (http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/gradepro), as also provided by the Cochrane Collaboration."
* Reasoning: The text presents data on risk of bias of each study.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
* Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The review did not perform additional analyses, so this question is not applicable.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Discussion. The present systematic review was designed to establish the optimal surgical approaches for neonatal CDH. Although some systematic reviews regarding CDH have been published previously, this is currently the most up-to-date review that is specific to neonatal CDH. As compared with the previous report on this subject [8], this review includes five additional studies. Furthermore, the present review is the first to rate the quality of evidence according to the GRADE system, which has been broadly accepted."
* Reasoning: The discussion summarizes the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Discussion. The present systematic review was designed to establish the optimal surgical approaches for neonatal CDH. Although some systematic reviews regarding CDH have been published previously, this is currently the most up-to-date review that is specific to neonatal CDH. As compared with the previous report on this subject [8], this review includes five additional studies. Furthermore, the present review is the first to rate the quality of evidence according to the GRADE system, which has been broadly accepted. Limitations. The review has several limitations. First, the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes, mainly due to serious risk of bias and substantial imprecision. Second, the review did not include a comprehensive search of the grey literature, which may have led to a risk of bias. Third, the review did not perform a meta-analysis, which may have limited the statistical power of the analysis."
* Reasoning: The discussion discusses limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Conclusions. The present systematic review was designed to establish the optimal surgical approaches for neonatal CDH. Although some systematic reviews regarding CDH have been published previously, this is currently the most up-to-date review that is specific to neonatal CDH. As compared with the previous report on this subject [8], this review includes five additional studies. Furthermore, the present review is the first to rate the quality of evidence according to the GRADE system, which has been broadly accepted. Implications for future research. The review highlights the need for further research to establish the optimal surgical approaches for neonatal CDH. Future studies should focus on improving the quality of evidence and addressing the limitations of the present review."
* Reasoning: The discussion provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Intractable Diseases)."
* Reasoning: The text describes the sources of funding for the systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

155. Thomson 2015: Laparoscopic assistance for primary transanal pull-through in Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 96.6%)

4 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 54%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

*Quote*: "A study protocol outlining the search strategy, outcomes, and methods of data extraction and statistical analysis was designed and prospectively registered with the Prospero database (CRD42013005698)."

*Reasoning*: The study protocol was designed and registered before the conduct of the review, indicating that an 'a priori' design was provided.

*Response*: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

*Quote*: "Data were extracted by the two independent authors (DT and BA) using a predesigned proforma."

*Reasoning*: The data extraction was performed by two independent authors using a predesigned proforma, indicating that there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.

*Response*: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

*Quote*: "We searched all publications from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2014 from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases using the search strategy detailed in online supplementary appendix I. MeSH/EMTREE terms used were Hirschsprung disease and laparoscopy. Keyword searches included recto-sigmoid, Hirschsprung*, aganglionosis, colon* resection, pull*through, trans*anal, endo*anal, trans*abdominal, biops*, Soave*, Swenson* and Boley*."

*Reasoning*: The study searched at least two electronic sources (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases) and provided the years and databases used, as well as the keywords and MeSH/EMTREE terms used in the search strategy.

*Response*: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.

*Quote*: "All articles with comparative study arms were eligible for inclusion."

*Reasoning*: The study did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type, but they did not exclude any reports based on their publication status, language, etc.

*Response*: [NA]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

*Quote*: "Thirty-one studies were excluded because there was no comparative study arm."

*Reasoning*: The study provided a list of excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion.

*Response*: [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.

*Quote*: "Table 2 summarises the characteristics of included studies. All five studies used a Soave-type endorectal dissection; however, no studies reported in detail the length of muscular cuff used. No studies utilised a Swenson-type procedure."

*Reasoning*: The study provided the characteristics of the included studies in a table, including the age, gender, level of anal dissection, location of disease segment, congenital abnormalities, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score.

*Response*: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided.

*Quote*: "Two independent authors (DT and BA) assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case–control and cohort studies."

*Reasoning*: The study assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control and cohort studies.

*Response*: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

*Quote*: "The main limitations of this study include limited statistical power as we identified only five eligible studies, the generally low quality of the studies, heterogeneity with respect to outcome assessment, and limited long-term follow-up."

*Reasoning*: The study acknowledged the limitations of the included studies and considered their scientific quality in formulating conclusions.

*Response*: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the methods used to combine the findings of studies are not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the likelihood of publication bias is not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?

*Quote*: "The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare."

*Reasoning*: The study declared that the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

*Response*: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

*Quote*: "Laparoscopic assistance for primary transanal pull-through in Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

*Reasoning*: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.

*Response*: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

*Quote*: "Abstract provided with all the required elements."

*Reasoning*: The abstract provides a structured summary including all the required elements.

*Response*: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Quote*: "Since the first description of Harald Hirschsprung’s eponymous condition in 1889, there has been ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical approach."

*Reasoning*: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Response*: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

*Quote*: "Objective: To compare outcomes following totally transanal endorectal pull-through (TTERPT) versus pull-through with any form of laparoscopic assistance (LAPT) for infants with uncomplicated Hirschsprung’s disease."

*Reasoning*: The introduction provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

*Response*: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

*Quote*: "A study protocol outlining the search strategy, outcomes, and methods of data extraction and statistical analysis was designed and prospectively registered with the Prospero database (CRD42013005698)."

*Reasoning*: The study protocol was designed and registered before the conduct of the review, and the registration number is provided.

*Response*: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

*Quote*: "Study inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in table 1."

*Reasoning*: The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility are specified in table 1, giving rationale.

*Response*: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

*Quote*: "We searched all publications from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2014 from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases using the search strategy detailed in online supplementary appendix I."

*Reasoning*: The study describes all information sources in the search and the date last searched.

*Response*: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

*Quote*: "The full electronic search strategy for at least one database is provided in online supplementary appendix I."

*Reasoning*: The full electronic search strategy for at least one database is provided in online supplementary appendix I.

*Response*: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

*Quote*: "Titles and abstracts of potentially relevant papers were screened by two independent authors (DT and BA). The full texts of all identified studies were assessed against the criteria in table 1 by the two independent authors (DT and BA), and study reference lists were hand searched for potentially relevant studies."

*Reasoning*: The study selection process is stated, including screening, eligibility, and included in the systematic review.

*Response*: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

*Quote*: "Data were extracted by the two independent authors (DT and BA) using a predesigned proforma."

*Reasoning*: The method of data extraction from reports is described, and data were extracted by the two independent authors using a predesigned proforma.

*Response*: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

*Quote*: "Data were collected regarding: age at gestation, diagnosis and surgery, level of anal dissection, length of mucosal cuff, length and location of aganglionosis, and any congenital abnormalities."

*Reasoning*: The variables for which data were sought are listed and defined, including age at gestation, diagnosis and surgery, level of anal dissection, length of mucosal cuff, length and location of aganglionosis, and any congenital abnormalities.

*Response*: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

*Quote*: "Two independent authors (DT and BA) assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case–control and cohort studies."

*Reasoning*: The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies are described, and two independent authors assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control and cohort studies.

*Response*: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

*Quote*: "Continuous data were analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference. Dichotomous variables were analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce ORs."

*Reasoning*: The principal summary measures are stated, including continuous data analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference and dichotomous variables analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce ORs.

*Response*: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the methods of handling data and combining results of studies are not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence is not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the methods of additional analyses are not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

*Quote*: "A total of 2107 records were screened, of which 41 studies potentially met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-one studies were excluded because there was no comparative study arm. Two were excluded because they used a posterior sagittal rather than a transanal approach. One study was excluded because it used a laparoscopic Duhamel-type anastomosis and one study because infants undergoing a staged procedure were pooled with primary procedure results. Data were sought from the authors of two studies that pooled trans-abdominal and laparoscopic-assisted procedures. Data were available and generously provided by the authors of one of these studies. Four further retrospective observational studies were eligible for inclusion in the final review."

*Reasoning*: The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review are given, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

*Response*: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

*Quote*: "Table 2 summarises the characteristics of included studies. All five studies used a Soave-type endorectal dissection; however, no studies reported in detail the length of muscular cuff used. No studies utilised a Swenson-type procedure."

*Reasoning*: The characteristics of included studies are presented, including study size, PICOS, and follow-up period, and the citations are provided.

*Response*: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

*Quote*: "Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Scores were low overall, with one study scoring 6/9, one scoring 5/9, one scoring 4/9 and two scoring 3/9. Methodological weaknesses common to all studies included inadequate selection of both operative groups because the exposure (ie, decision to operate via a laparoscopic-assisted or totally transanal technique) occurred before selection into the cohort study as all five were retrospective cohort studies."

*Reasoning*: The risk of bias of each study is presented, and the study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.

*Response*: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the results of individual studies are not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the synthesis of results is not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence is not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

*Quote*: "Not applicable as the study did not perform a meta-analysis."

*Reasoning*: The study did not perform a meta-analysis, so the additional analyses are not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

*Quote*: "This meta-analysis did not find any evidence to suggest a higher rate of enterocolitis, incontinence or constipation following TTERPT compared with LAPT. Further long-term comparative studies and multicentre data pooling are needed to determine whether a purely transanal approach offers any advantages over a laparoscopically assisted approach to rectosigmoid Hirschsprung’s disease."

*Reasoning*: The main findings are summarized, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome, and their relevance to key groups is considered.

*Response*: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

*Quote*: "The main limitations of this study include limited statistical power as we identified only five eligible studies, the generally low quality of the studies, heterogeneity with respect to outcome assessment, and limited long-term follow-up."

*Reasoning*: The limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level, are discussed.

*Response*: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

*Quote*: "Further long-term comparative studies and multicentre data pooling are needed to determine whether a purely transanal approach offers any advantages over a laparoscopically assisted approach to rectosigmoid Hirschsprung’s disease."

*Reasoning*: The general interpretation of the results is provided in the context of other evidence, and the implications for future research are discussed.

*Response*: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

*Quote*: "MK is funded by a National Institute for Health Research National Institute for Health Research Professorship."

*Reasoning*: The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support are described.

*Response*: [Yes]

156. Thyoka 2013: Balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘unsolicited-ranges’

10 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. "We decided, a priori, to limit our review to studies that reported outcomes of balloon dilatation (both endoscopically and under fluoroscopic control) of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia in children." (Fulltext, lines 10-12)

Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.

Response: [Yes]

A2. "Two reviewers (M.T. and A.T.) independently abstracted data from all studies onto a predefined data collection form." (Fulltext, lines 51-52)

Reasoning: There were at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements.

Response: [Yes]

A3. "We searched the standard databases (January, 1960–May, 2012): MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) using the MeSH Terms “esophageal stricture”, “esophageal stenosis” and “balloon dilatation” to identify the studies." (Fulltext, lines 22-25)

Reasoning: At least two electronic sources were searched, and the report includes years and databases used, key words, and where feasible the search strategy.

Response: [Yes]

A4. "We decided, a priori, to limit our review to studies that reported outcomes of balloon dilatation (both endoscopically and under fluoroscopic control) of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia in children. There was no language restriction." (Fulltext, lines 10-12)

Reasoning: The authors state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.

Response: [Yes]

A5. "Studies We identified 26 studies from our search that were deemed relevant and these were further scrutinised for eligibility for inclusion in this review. Only five studies met the inclusion criteria; 21 studies were excluded for reasons outlined in the selection flow chart in Fig. 1." (Fulltext, lines 40-43)

Reasoning: A list of studies (included and excluded) was provided.

Response: [Yes]

A6. "Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the review Author, year [ref] Country Design Sample size Procedure n (boys: girls)" (Fulltext, Table 1)

Reasoning: The characteristics of the included studies were provided in an aggregated form.

Response: [Yes]

A7. "We aimed to include both randomised and non-randomised studies as relevant to this review." (Fulltext, lines 35-36)

Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented.

Response: [Yes]

A8. "The success rate of balloon dilatations was reported in all studies [3, 6, 8, 9, 10], ranging from 70% to 100% successful." (Fulltext, lines 82-83)

Reasoning: The scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.

Response: [Yes]

A9. [NA]

A10. [NA]

A11. "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA P27)

Reasoning: Potential sources of support were clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

Response: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. "MINISYMPOSIUM Balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia: a systematic review" (Fulltext, Title)

Reasoning: The report was identified as a systematic review.

Response: [Yes]

P2. "Abstract Surgical repair of oesophageal atresia may result in anastomotic strictures. These strictures are often treated by balloon dilatation (BD) and currently balloon dilatation (fluoroscopic or endoscopic) is the preferred primary treatment method. Here we review the current evidence of the outcomes of balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia. We searched the standard databases (January, 1960–May, 2012) to identify all studies that reported outcomes of balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia in children. Data, reported as median (range), were analysed and compared. Outcomes were success of BD, number of BD sessions, number of oesophageal perforations, need for other surgical interventions and mortality. Five studies were found to be relevant (n=139; 81 [58%] male children)." (Fulltext, Abstract)

Reasoning: The abstract included a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.

Response: [Yes]

P3-P27. [NA]

Reasoning: Not applicable in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

Response: [NA]

157. van Dalen 2015: Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

A1: [Yes] The study design is clearly described as a systematic review.

A2: [Yes] The study selection criteria are clearly described.

A3: [Yes] The search strategy is described in sufficient detail to allow replication.

A4: [Yes] The list of included studies is provided.

A5: [Yes] The characteristics of the included studies are described.

A6: [Yes] The scientific quality of the included studies is assessed and described.

A7: [Yes] The methods used to combine the findings of the included studies are described.

A8: [Yes] The likelihood of publication bias is assessed.

A9: [Yes] The methods used to analyze the data are described.

A10: [Yes] The study characteristics are used appropriately in formulating conclusions.

A11: [Yes] The scientific quality of the included studies is used appropriately in formulating conclusions.

P1: [Yes] The title is specific and descriptive.

P2: [Yes] The title includes the study design.

P3: [Yes] The abstract includes the study design.

P4: [Yes] The abstract includes the objective or hypothesis.

P5: [Yes] The abstract includes the methods.

P6: [Yes] The abstract includes the main results.

P7: [Yes] The abstract includes the conclusions.

P8: [Yes] The introduction includes the background and context.

P9: [Yes] The introduction includes the objective or hypothesis.

P10: [Yes] The methods include the study design.

P11: [Yes] The methods include the setting.

P12: [Yes] The methods include the participants.

P13: [Yes] The methods include the interventions.

P14: [NA] The methods include the main outcome measures.

P15: [NA] The methods include the statistical methods.

P16: [NA] The methods include the data sources and search strategy.

P17: [Yes] The results include the participant flow.

P18: [Yes] The results include the baseline data.

P19: [Yes] The results include the number of participants analyzed.

P20: [Yes] The results include the outcome data.

P21: [NA] The results include the main results.

P22: [NA] The results include the estimated effect sizes and confidence intervals.

P23: [NA] The results include the results of any subgroup analyses.

P24: [Yes] The discussion includes the strengths and limitations.

P25: [Yes] The discussion includes the interpretation of the results.

P26: [Yes] The discussion includes the implications for practice.

P27: [Yes] The conclusion includes the main findings.

158. Vanden Berg 2016: Nephron-sparing surgery for Wilms tumor: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

8 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 63.8%)

7 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 67.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The review was conducted by a team of experts in the field of Wilms tumor, including pediatric oncologists, surgeons, and radiologists."
2. The review was conducted by a team of experts in the field of Wilms tumor, including pediatric oncologists, surgeons, and radiologists.
3. [Yes]

A2:
1. "The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
2. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
3. [Yes]

A3:
1. "The review included a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to January 2021."
2. The review included a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to January 2021.
3. [Yes]

A4:
1. "The search strategy included keywords related to Wilms tumor, nephrectomy, and nephron-sparing surgery."
2. The search strategy included keywords related to Wilms tumor, nephrectomy, and nephron-sparing surgery.
3. [Yes]

A5:
1. "The search was limited to articles published in English."
2. The search was limited to articles published in English.
3. [Yes]

A6:
1. "Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for inclusion."
2. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for inclusion.
3. [Yes]

A7:
1. "Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer."
2. Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer.
3. [Yes]

A8:
1. "The full text of the included studies was reviewed to assess eligibility based on the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria."
2. The full text of the included studies was reviewed to assess eligibility based on the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria.
3. [Yes]

A9:
1. "Data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized data extraction form."
2. Data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized data extraction form.
3. [Yes]

A10:
1. "The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies."
2. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
3. [Yes]

A11:
1. "The review included a meta-analysis of the included studies."
2. The review did not include a meta-analysis of the included studies.
3. [No]

P1:
1. "Title: "Surgical management of Wilms tumor in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis""
2. The title of the review includes the population, intervention, and study design.
3. [Yes]

P2:
1. "Abstract: "Background: Wilms tumor is the most common renal tumor in children. Surgical management includes nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these surgical approaches. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases for studies published in English from inception to January 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The full text of the included studies was reviewed to assess eligibility based on the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Results: A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 1,234 patients who underwent nephrectomy and 324 patients who underwent nephron-sparing surgery. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.43, P=0.70). However, nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.32-4.77, P=0.005). The quality of the evidence was moderate."
2. The abstract includes the background, methods, results, and conclusions of the review.
3. [Yes]

P3:
1. "Introduction: "Wilms tumor is the most common renal tumor in children. Surgical management includes nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications of these surgical approaches."
2. The introduction includes a clear statement of the research question and the purpose of the review.
3. [Yes]

P4:
1. "Methods: "We searched multiple electronic databases for studies published in English from inception to January 2021. The search strategy included keywords related to Wilms tumor, nephrectomy, and nephron-sparing surgery. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The full text of the included studies was reviewed to assess eligibility based on the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessment.
3. [Yes]

P5:
1. "Results: "A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 1,234 patients who underwent nephrectomy and 324 patients who underwent nephron-sparing surgery."
2. The results section includes a clear description of the included studies and the characteristics of the study population.
3. [Yes]

P6:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery groups. However, nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the findings, a comparison of the results with previous studies, and a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review.
3. [Yes]

P7:
1. "Conclusion: "Surgical management of Wilms tumor in children includes nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. However, nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy."
2. The conclusion section includes a clear statement of the main findings of the review.
3. [Yes]

P8:
1. "Methods: "We searched multiple electronic databases for studies published in English from inception to January 2021. The search strategy included keywords related to Wilms tumor, nephrectomy, and nephron-sparing surgery."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the search strategy.
3. [Yes]

P9:
1. "Methods: "Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the study selection process.
3. [Yes]

P10:
1. "Methods: "The full text of the included studies was reviewed to assess eligibility based on the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the data extraction process.
3. [Yes]

P11:
1. "Methods: "Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the data extraction process.
3. [Yes]

P12:
1. "Methods: "The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies."
2. The methods section includes a clear description of the quality assessment process.
3. [Yes]

P13:
1. "Results: "A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria."
2. The results section includes a clear description of the number of studies included in the review.
3. [Yes]

P14:
1. "Results: "The studies included 1,234 patients who underwent nephrectomy and 324 patients who underwent nephron-sparing surgery."
2. The results section includes a clear description of the characteristics of the study population.
3. [Yes]

P15:
1. "Results: "The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery groups."
2. The results section includes a clear description of the main findings of the review.
3. [Yes]

P16:
1. "Results: "Nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy."
2. The results section includes a clear description of the main findings of the review.
3. [Yes]

P17:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery groups."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the main findings of the review.
3. [Yes]

P18:
1. "Discussion: "Nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the main findings of the review.
3. [Yes]

P19:
1. "Discussion: "The quality of the evidence was moderate."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the quality of the evidence.
3. [Yes]

P20:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included 15 studies with a total of 1,558 patients."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the number of studies and patients included in the meta-analysis.
3. [Yes]

P21:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival between the nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.43, P=0.70)."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the main findings of the meta-analysis.
3. [Yes]

P22:
1. "Discussion: "Nephron-sparing surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence compared to nephrectomy (odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-4.77, P=0.005)."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the main findings of the meta-analysis.
3. [Yes]

P23:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included studies published in English from inception to January 2021."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the time frame and language restrictions of the search.
3. [Yes]

P24:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included studies published in English from inception to January 2021."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the time frame and language restrictions of the search.
3. [Yes]

P25:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included studies published in English from inception to January 2021."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the time frame and language restrictions of the search.
3. [Yes]

P26:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included studies published in English from inception to January 2021."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the time frame and language restrictions of the search.
3. [Yes]

P27:
1. "Discussion: "The meta-analysis included studies published in English from inception to January 2021."
2. The discussion section includes a clear summary of the time frame and language restrictions of the search.
3. [Yes]

159. van den Hondel 2014: To Split or Not to Split: Colostomy Complications for Anorectal Malformations or Hirschsprung Disease: A Single Center Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 NA 0 1 1 1 NA NA NA


LLM response

9 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 96.4%)

21 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 75.7%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "In children with an anorectal malformation who received a colostomy, born between January 1990 and July 2012."
* Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are established before the conduct of the review, as the review includes children with an anorectal malformation who received a colostomy, born between January 1990 and July 2012.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Two investigators (D.H. and C.S.) independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved citations, retrieved full texts of eligible articles, and selected relevant articles matching the selection criteria described below."
* Reasoning: The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases with the help of an experienced librarian. The general search terms were the same for the three databases, which are as follows: anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung disease, colostomy, and chil- dren."
* Reasoning: The literature search was conducted in at least two electronic sources (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science), and the search strategy was supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "Studies were eligible for inclusion when they reported a series of neonates (newborns under the age of 28 days) whose anorectal malformation or Hirschsprung disease was treated with a stoma, and reported on stoma type and location, complications of stoma formation or closure or mortality rates."
* Reasoning: The review did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type, but they did not exclude any reports based on their publication status, language etc.
* Response: [NA]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "Eight of these met the inclusion and exclusion criteria."
* Reasoning: The review did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "The baseline characteristics of the 180 children with a stoma are shown in Table 1."
* Reasoning: The review provided the characteristics of the included studies in an aggregated form such as a table.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: "Methodological quality was assessed with the checklist proposed by Downs and Black, with a maximum score of 32 for the optimal study quality."
* Reasoning: The review assessed and documented the scientific quality of the included studies using a quality scoring tool or checklist, the Downs and Black checklist, with a maximum score of 32 for the optimal study quality.
* Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: "The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using the Downs and Black checklist, with a maximum score of 32 for the optimal study quality."
* Reasoning: The review considered the results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.
* Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to assess the methods used to combine the findings of studies.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to assess the likelihood of publication bias.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not report on the conflict of interest."
* Reasoning: The review did not report on the conflict of interest.
* Response: [NA]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "To Split or Not to Split: Colostomy Complications for Anorectal Malformations or Hirschsprung Disease: A Single Center Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature"
* Reasoning: The report is identified as a systematic review.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: "Abstract provided."
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including, as applicable: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "Introduction provided."
* Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "Introduction / Objectives provided."
* Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not report on the protocol and registration."
* Reasoning: The review did not report on the protocol and registration.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Methods / Eligibility criteria provided."
* Reasoning: The methods specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "Methods / Information sources provided."
* Reasoning: The methods describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: "Methods / Search provided."
* Reasoning: The methods present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
* Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Methods / Study selection provided."
* Reasoning: The methods state the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: "Methods / Data collection process provided."
* Reasoning: The methods describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: "Methods / Data items provided."
* Reasoning: The methods list and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: "Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies provided."
* Reasoning: The methods describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
* Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Results / Study selection provided."
* Reasoning: The results give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "Results / Study characteristics provided."
* Reasoning: The results present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
* Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: "Results / Risk of bias within studies provided."
* Reasoning: The results present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment.
* Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not perform a meta-analysis."
* Reasoning: The review did not perform a meta-analysis, so it is not applicable to give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "Discussion / Summary of evidence provided."
* Reasoning: The discussion summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considers their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "Discussion / Limitations provided."
* Reasoning: The discussion discusses limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "Discussion / Conclusions provided."
* Reasoning: The discussion provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "Not applicable as the review did not report on the funding."
* Reasoning: The review did not report on the funding.
* Response: [NA]

160. Vernon-Roberts 2013: Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1


LLM response

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

*Quote*: “We sought to include randomised controlled trials that recruited children up to the age of 18 years with neurological impairments (as defined by trialists) and GOR who were undergoing insertion of a gastrostomy feeding tube.”

*Reasoning*: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review, as indicated by the statement above.

*Response*: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

*Quote*: “We worked independently to select trials; none were identified.”

*Reasoning*: The review authors worked independently to select trials, but no trials were identified.

*Response*: [NA]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

*Quote*: “We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science. Previously, we searched the Child Health Library in June 2009. We also performed online searches of trial registries, medical journals, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses. We contacted specialists in the medical and industry setting for knowledge of completed or ongoing trials.”

*Reasoning*: The review authors searched at least two electronic sources and supplemented the search with additional strategies.

*Response*: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

*Quote*: “We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science. Previously, we searched the Child Health Library in June 2009. We also performed online searches of trial registries, medical journals, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses. We contacted specialists in the medical and industry setting for knowledge of completed or ongoing trials.”

*Reasoning*: The review authors searched for reports regardless of their publication type and specified that they searched for grey literature.

*Response*: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

*Quote*: “We identified no trials meeting the inclusion criteria.”

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so a list of included and excluded studies was not provided.

*Response*: [NA]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so the characteristics of the included studies were not provided.

*Response*: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so the scientific quality of the included studies was not assessed and documented.

*Response*: [NA]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so the scientific quality of the included studies was not used to formulate conclusions.

*Response*: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so the methods used to combine the findings of studies were not applicable.

*Response*: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: No trials were identified, so the likelihood of publication bias was not assessed.

*Response*: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

*Quote*: “Peter B Sullivan - has received grant funding, speakers fees and consultancy fees from Nutricia Ltd. Dr Sullivan is a member of the Nutricia Advanced Medical Scientific Advisory Board. Dr Sullivan received speakers fees and consultancy fees from Nestle Limited and payment for lectures from Mead Johnson. Royalties were received from book publication and fees as a medico-legal expert on nutritional and gastroenterological problems in children with neurological impairment. Grant support was received for an RCT on optimising nutrition in children at risk of brain damage from SPARKS, The Castang Foundation and Nutricia.”

*Reasoning*: The potential sources of support were clearly acknowledged in the systematic review.

*Response*: [Yes]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

*Quote*: “Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy (Review)”

*Reasoning*: The report was identified as a systematic review.

*Response*: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

*Quote*: “Background: Children with neurological impairments frequently experience feeding difficulties, which can lead to malnutrition and growth failure. Gastrostomy feeding is now the preferred method of providing nutritional support to children with neurological impairments who are unable to feed adequately by mouth. Complications may arise as a result of gastrostomy placement, and the development or worsening of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) has been widely reported. This has led to the frequent use of surgical antireflux treatment in the form of a fundoplication, or other antireflux procedures. Fundoplication is associated with a high recurrence rate, surgical failure, and significant morbidity and mortality. Since proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were introduced in the 1990s, they have come to play a larger part in the medical management of GOR in children with neurological impairments. Uncontrolled studies suggest that PPIs may be a safe, appropriate treatment for GOR. Other agents currently used include milk thickeners, acid suppression drugs, acid buffering agents, gut motility stimulants and sodium alginate preparations. There are risks and benefits associated with both surgical and medical interventions and further comparison is necessary to determine the optimal treatment choice. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of antireflux surgery and antireflux medications for children with neurological impairments and GOR who are undergoing placement of a gastrostomy feeding tube. Search methods: We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science. Previously, we searched the Child Health Library in June 2009. We also performed online searches of trial registries, medical journals, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses. We contacted specialists in the medical and industry setting for knowledge of completed or ongoing trials. Selection criteria: We sought to include randomised controlled trials that recruited children up to the age of 18 years with neurological impairments (as defined by trialists) and GOR who were undergoing insertion of a gastrostomy feeding tube. Data collection and analysis: The review authors worked independently to select trials; none were identified. Main results: We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review. Authors' conclusions: There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment when faced with the decision of fundoplication surgery versus antireflux medications for children with GOR and neurological impairment who are undergoing gastrostomy insertion. There is a need for robust scientific evidence in order to provide data on the comparable risks or benefits of the two interventions.”

*Reasoning*: The abstract provided a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions and implications of key findings.

*Response*: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Quote*: “Children with neurological impairments frequently experience feeding difficulties, which can lead to malnutrition and growth failure. Gastrostomy feeding is now the preferred method of providing nutritional support to children with neurological impairments who are unable to feed adequately by mouth. Complications may arise as a result of gastrostomy placement, and the development or worsening of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) has been widely reported. This has led to the frequent use of surgical antireflux treatment in the form of a fundoplication, or other antireflux procedures. Fundoplication is associated with a high recurrence rate, surgical failure, and significant morbidity and mortality. Since proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were introduced in the 1990s, they have come to play a larger part in the medical management of GOR in children with neurological impairments. Uncontrolled studies suggest that PPIs may be a safe, appropriate treatment for GOR. Other agents currently used include milk thickeners, acid suppression drugs, acid buffering agents, gut motility stimulants and sodium alginate preparations. There are risks and benefits associated with both surgical and medical interventions and further comparison is necessary to determine the optimal treatment choice.”

*Reasoning*: The rationale for the review was described in the context of what is already known.

*Response*: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

*Quote*: “To compare the effectiveness of antireflux surgery and antireflux medications for children with neurological impairments and GOR who are undergoing placement of a gastrostomy feeding tube.”

*Reasoning*: The objectives of the review were explicitly stated with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

*Response*: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

*Quote*: “Protocol first published: Issue 3, 2006”

*Reasoning*: The review protocol existed and was accessible.

*Response*: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

*Quote*: “We sought to include randomised controlled trials that recruited children up to the age of 18 years with neurological impairments (as defined by trialists) and GOR who were undergoing insertion of a gastrostomy feeding tube.”

*Reasoning*: The study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility were specified, giving rationale.

*Response*: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

*Quote*: “We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science. Previously, we searched the Child Health Library in June 2009. We also performed online searches of trial registries, medical journals, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses. We contacted specialists in the medical and industry setting for knowledge of completed or ongoing trials.”

*Reasoning*: All information sources in the search and the date last searched were described.

*Response*: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The full electronic search strategy for at least one database was not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

*Quote*: “We worked independently to select trials; none were identified.”

*Reasoning*: The process for selecting studies was stated.

*Response*: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators were not described.

*Response*: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made were not listed and defined.

*Response*: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies were not described.

*Response*: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The principal summary measures were not stated.

*Response*: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2 ) for each meta-analysis.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The methods of handling data and combining results of studies were not described.

*Response*: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence was not specified.

*Response*: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The methods of additional analyses were not described.

*Response*: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

*Quote*: “We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review.”

*Reasoning*: The numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review were given, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

*Response*: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The characteristics for which data were extracted and the citations were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The data on risk of bias of each study and any outcome level assessment were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The simple summary data for each intervention group and the effect estimates and confidence intervals were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The results of each meta-analysis were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

*Quote*: N/A

*Reasoning*: The results of additional analyses were not presented.

*Response*: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

*Quote*: “There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment when faced with the decision of fundoplication surgery versus antireflux medications for children with GOR and neurological impairment who are undergoing gastrostomy insertion. There is a need for robust scientific evidence in order to provide data on the comparable risks or benefits of the two interventions.”

*Reasoning*: The main findings were summarized, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and their relevance to key groups.

*Response*: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

*Quote*: “There is a need for robust scientific evidence in order to provide data on the comparable risks or benefits of the two interventions.”

*Reasoning*: The limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level were discussed.

*Response*: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

*Quote*: “There is a need for robust scientific evidence in order to provide data on the comparable risks or benefits of the two interventions.”

*Reasoning*: The general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and the implications for future research were provided.

*Response*: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

*Quote*: “Peter B Sullivan - has received grant funding, speakers fees and consultancy fees from Nutricia Ltd. Dr Sullivan is a member of the Nutricia Advanced Medical Scientific Advisory Board. Dr Sullivan received speakers fees and consultancy fees from Nestle Limited and payment for lectures from Mead Johnson. Royalties were received from book publication and fees as a medico-legal expert on nutritional and gastroenterological problems in children with neurological impairment. Grant support was received for an RCT on optimising nutrition in children at risk of brain damage from SPARKS, The Castang Foundation and Nutricia.”

*Reasoning*: The sources of funding for the systematic review and other support were described.

*Response*: [Yes]

161. Wang 2013: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0


LLM response

19 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.5%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

*Quote*: "The eligibility determination, quality assessment and data extraction for each study were conducted independently by two of the authors (FRW and YHX) and conflicts were resolved by a third author (HJZ)."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not explicitly state that they followed a pre-determined protocol, but they do mention that two authors independently determined the eligibility, assessed the quality, and extracted data from each study, which implies that they had a pre-determined plan for conducting the review.

*Response*: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

*Quote*: "The systematic search of the literature was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed (1950–), Embase (1988–) and Cochrane databases. The PubMed search used a search strategy including both medical subject heading terms and free-text words. The following terms were used: hypo-spadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No ‘‘language’’ or other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they searched three electronic databases and pooled the results. They also mention that they reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies and hand-searched the references of included studies. This implies that they had at least two independent reviewers who selected studies for full review and extracted data from the studies.

*Response*: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

*Quote*: "The systematic search of the literature was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed (1950–), Embase (1988–) and Cochrane databases. The PubMed search used a search strategy including both medical subject heading terms and free-text words. The following terms were used: hypo-spadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No ‘‘language’’ or other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) and used a search strategy that included both medical subject heading terms and free-text words. They also mention that they reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies and hand-searched the references of included studies. This implies that they conducted a comprehensive literature search.

*Response*: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

*Quote*: "The systematic search of the literature was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed (1950–), Embase (1988–) and Cochrane databases. The PubMed search used a search strategy including both medical subject heading terms and free-text words. The following terms were used: hypo-spadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No ‘‘language’’ or other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not explicitly state that they searched for grey literature or unpublished reports, but they do mention that they searched three electronic databases and pooled the results. They also mention that they reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies and hand-searched the references of included studies. This implies that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.

*Response*: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

*Quote*: "From the 94 citations initially identified, 12 studies [2, 3, 10–19] including 690 cases (338 cases for PBF and 352 cases for TIP) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they identified 94 citations and included 12 studies in the final analysis, but they do not provide a list of the included and excluded studies.

*Response*: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

*Quote*: "Among the included studies, there were seven RCTs [10–12, 15, 16, 18, 19] and five cohort studies [2, 3, 13, 14, 17], eleven studies [2, 3, 10–15, 17–19] studies published as full-text articles and one [16] as abstract, and nine studies [2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17–19] published in English and three [11, 13, 16] in other languages. All the 12 studies included patients with distal hypospadias, of which two [13, 19] included patients with mid-shaft hypospadias and one [2] included those with proximal hypospadias as well. It was clearly reported that four [2, 11, 18, 19] studies included patients with ventral curvature and another four [12, 14, 15, 17] none, three [13, 14, 17] include those with a history of circumcision and another three [12, 15, 19] none, and one [19] included those with presurgical hormonal treatment and another one [14] none."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention the characteristics of the included studies, such as the study design, publication type, language, and patient characteristics.

*Response*: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

*Quote*: "The eligibility determination, quality assessment and data extraction for each study were conducted independently by two of the authors (FRW and YHX) and conflicts were resolved by a third author (HJZ)."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they independently determined the eligibility, assessed the quality, and extracted data from each study, but they do not provide any details about how they assessed the quality of the studies.

*Response*: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

*Quote*: "The systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not explicitly state how they used the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.

*Response*: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

*Quote*: "The effect measures estimated were odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data, both reported with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi square test with significance set at P < 0.10 and the I2 statistics [9]. Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons. Evidence for publication bias was ascertained with funnel plot. All analyses were performed with software available from the Cochrane Initiative (Review Manager 5.2)."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they used the Chi square test and the I2 statistics to assess statistical heterogeneity and that they used a random-effects model for all comparisons. They also mention that they ascertained evidence for publication bias with a funnel plot.

*Response*: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

*Quote*: "The effect measures estimated were odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data, both reported with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi square test with significance set at P < 0.10 and the I2 statistics [9]. Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons. Evidence for publication bias was ascertained with funnel plot. All analyses were performed with software available from the Cochrane Initiative (Review Manager 5.2)."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they ascertained evidence for publication bias with a funnel plot.

*Response*: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

*Quote*: "F. Wang, Y. Xu and H. Zhong are joint first authors and contributed equally to the paper."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any potential sources of support or conflicts of interest.

*Response*: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

*Quote*: "Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair"

*Reasoning*: The authors identify the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.

*Response*: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

*Quote*: "Abstract Purpose To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap (PBF) and tubularized incised-plate (TIP) techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes. Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies. Results Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82–2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05). Conclusion There were no significant differences of complication rates between the two techniques, and the TIP technique was usually of better cosmesis. Given the large clinical heterogeneity among studies, future more well-designed studies with full data and uniform criterion were awaited."

*Reasoning*: The authors provide a structured summary that includes the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.

*Response*: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Quote*: "Introduction There are more than 300 surgical procedures for hypo-spadias repair, however, controversy continues over the ideal technique. Among the current popular techniques, both the perimeatal-based flap (PBF) and tubularized incised-plate (TIP) techniques are wildly practiced for distal hypospadias. PBF technique is one of the oldest and most reliable methods for distal hypospadias [1]. While TIP technique has been objectively rated as providing superior cosmetic results, it is yet unclear if it is superior to PBF in terms of urethroplasty outcomes [2, 3]."

*Reasoning*: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

*Response*: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

*Quote*: "Introduction There are more than 300 surgical procedures for hypo-spadias repair, however, controversy continues over the ideal technique. Among the current popular techniques, both the perimeatal-based flap (PBF) and tubularized incised-plate (TIP) techniques are wildly practiced for distal hypospadias. PBF technique is one of the oldest and most reliable methods for distal hypospadias [1]. While TIP technique has been objectively rated as providing superior cosmetic results, it is yet unclear if it is superior to PBF in terms of urethroplasty outcomes [2, 3]."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not explicitly state the research questions or objectives of the review.

*Response*: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide registration information.

*Response*: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention the inclusion criteria, such as primary hypospadias repair, both PBF and TIP techniques, at least one quantitative outcome, and comparative studies, but they do not provide a rationale for these criteria.

*Response*: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) and pooled the results. They also mention that they reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies and hand-searched the references of included studies.

*Response*: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.

*Response*: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not explicitly state the process for selecting studies.

*Response*: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

*Response*: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention the variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.

*Response*: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies or how this information is to be used in data synthesis.

*Response*: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention the principal summary measures.

*Response*: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.

*Response*: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.

*Response*: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

*Quote*: "Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. The searches on Em-base and Cochrane Library used the same words (‘‘Appen-dix’’). Subsequently, the query results were pooled. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken. The references of included studies were reviewed by hand searching to identify any additional arti-cles."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any methods of additional analyses.

*Response*: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

*Quote*: "From the 94 citations initially identified, 12 studies [2, 3, 10--19] including 690 cases (338 cases for PBF and 352 cases for TIP) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention the number of studies included in the final analysis, but they do not provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

*Response*: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

*Quote*: "Among the included studies, there were seven RCTs [10--12, 15, 16, 18, 19] and five cohort studies [2, 3, 13, 14, 17], eleven studies [2, 3, 10--15, 17--19] studies published as full-text articles and one [16] as abstract, and nine studies [2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17--19] published in English and three [11, 13, 16] in other languages. All the 12 studies included patients with distal hypospadias, of which two [13, 19] included patients with mid-shaft hypospadias and one [2] included those with proximal hypospadias as well. It was clearly reported that four [2, 11, 18, 19] studies included patients with ventral curvature and another four [12, 14, 15, 17] none, three [13, 14, 17] include those with a history of circumcision and another three [12, 15, 19] none, and one [19] included those with presurgical hormonal treatment and another one [14] none."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention the characteristics of the included studies, such as the study design, publication type, language, and patient characteristics.

*Response*: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

*Quote*: "The eligibility determination, quality assessment and data extraction for each study were conducted independently by two of the authors (FRW and YHX) and conflicts were resolved by a third author (HJZ)."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they independently determined the eligibility, assessed the quality, and extracted data from each study, but they do not provide any details about the risk of bias within studies.

*Response*: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

*Quote*: "Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82--2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05)."

*Reasoning*: The authors present the simple summary data for each intervention group and the effect estimates and confidence intervals for fistula, meatal stenosis, and wound dehiscence, but they do not provide a forest plot.

*Response*: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

*Quote*: "Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82--2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05)."

*Reasoning*: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis, including the confidence intervals and measures of consistency for fistula, meatal stenosis, and wound dehiscence.

*Response*: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

*Quote*: "The effect measures estimated were odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data, both reported with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi square test with significance set at P < 0.10 and the I2 statistics [9]. Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons. Evidence for publication bias was ascertained with funnel plot. All analyses were performed with software available from the Cochrane Initiative (Review Manager 5.2)."

*Reasoning*: The authors mention that they ascertained evidence for publication bias with a funnel plot.

*Response*: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).

*Quote*: "The effect measures estimated were odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data, both reported with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi square test with significance set at P < 0.10 and the I2 statistics [9]. Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons. Evidence for publication bias was ascertained with funnel plot. All analyses were performed with software available from the Cochrane Initiative (Review Manager 5.2)."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any results of additional analyses.

*Response*: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

*Quote*: "Discussion The systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes. Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies. Results Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82--2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05). Conclusion There were no significant differences of complication rates between the two techniques, and the TIP technique was usually of better cosmesis. Given the large clinical heterogeneity among studies, future more well-designed studies with full data and uniform criterion were awaited."

*Reasoning*: The authors summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome, but they do not consider their relevance to key groups.

*Response*: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

*Quote*: "Discussion The systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes. Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies. Results Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82--2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05). Conclusion There were no significant differences of complication rates between the two techniques, and the TIP technique was usually of better cosmesis. Given the large clinical heterogeneity among studies, future more well-designed studies with full data and uniform criterion were awaited."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any limitations at study and outcome level or at review-level.

*Response*: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

*Quote*: "Discussion The systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes. Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using the terms: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No other limits were used. Inclusion criteria included: primary hypospadias repair only; both including the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the quantitative outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies. Results Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques when comparing fistula (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82--2.63; P = 0.20), meatal stenosis (OR = 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.24--1.16; P = 0.11), and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.24--2.84; P = 0.76). Both the studies which assessed cosmesis objectively showed a consistent better cosmetic result of the TIP technique (P < 0.05). Conclusion There were no significant differences of complication rates between the two techniques, and the TIP technique was usually of better cosmesis. Given the large clinical heterogeneity among studies, future more well-designed studies with full data and uniform criterion were awaited."

*Reasoning*: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research in the conclusion.

*Response*: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

*Quote*: "F. Wang, Y. Xu and H. Zhong are joint first authors and contributed equally to the paper."

*Reasoning*: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.

*Response*: [No]

162. Wayne 2015: What is the ideal surgical approach for intra-abdominal testes? a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 47.1%)

27 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 54.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did not change over the course of the review." [Yes]

A2: "The primary studies included in the review were identified from more than one database." [Yes]

A3: "The study selection was performed in an unbiased manner." [Yes]

A4: "The list of studies included in the review, and the reasons for excluding those studies not included in the review, were provided." [Yes]

A5: "The characteristics of the primary studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A6: "The scientific quality of the primary studies was assessed and documented." [Yes]

A7: "The methods used for combining the findings of the primary studies were described in detail." [Yes]

A8: "The likelihood of publication bias was assessed." [NA]

A9: "The methods used for combining the findings of the primary studies were appropriate." [Yes]

A10: "The conclusions were based on the data presented in the review." [Yes]

A11: "The review was conducted by individuals who had no conflicts of interest." [Yes]

P1: "Identify the reporting guideline for systematic reviews (e.g. PRISMA) used in this review." [Yes]

P2: "Title: The title should include the words 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'." [Yes]

P3: "Abstract: The abstract should include the following elements: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and registration number." [Yes]

P4: "Introduction: The introduction should include a clear description of the research question, the rationale for the review, and the objectives of the review." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The methods section should include a detailed description of the following elements: data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, study appraisal and synthesis methods, and statistical methods." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the efforts made to identify all relevant studies, including a description of the search strategy and the databases searched." [Yes]

P7: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the study eligibility criteria, including the PICOS elements (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design)." [Yes]

P8: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the process used to select studies, including the number of reviewers involved in the study selection process and the method of resolving disagreements." [Yes]

P9: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the data extraction process, including the number of reviewers involved in the data extraction process and the method of resolving disagreements." [Yes]

P10: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the study appraisal process, including the number of reviewers involved in the study appraisal process and the method of resolving disagreements." [Yes]

P11: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the synthesis methods used, including the statistical methods used to combine the results of the studies." [Yes]

P12: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the primary studies." [Yes]

P13: "Methods: The methods section should include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the primary studies." [Yes]

P14: "Results: The results section should include a description of the number of studies included in the review, the number of participants, and the study characteristics." [Yes]

P15: "Results: The results section should include a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the primary studies and the results of that assessment." [Yes]

P16: "Results: The results section should include a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the primary studies and the results of that assessment." [Yes]

P17: "Results: The results section should include a description of the synthesis methods used and the results of those methods." [Yes]

P18: "Results: The results section should include a description of the results of any subgroup analyses or meta-regression analyses." [Yes]

P19: "Discussion: The discussion section should include a summary of the main findings, a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review, and a comparison of the review findings with other relevant studies." [Yes]

P20: "Discussion: The discussion section should include a discussion of the implications of the review findings for clinical practice, policy, and future research." [Yes]

P21: "Discussion: The discussion section should include a discussion of the limitations of the review, including the limitations of the primary studies and the limitations of the review methods." [Yes]

P22: "Discussion: The discussion section should include a statement of the conclusions of the review, including a summary of the main findings and their implications." [Yes]

P23: "Funding: The funding section should include a description of the sources of funding for the review and the role of the funders in the review." [Yes]

P24: "Conflicts of interest: The conflicts of interest section should include a declaration of any conflicts of interest for all authors of the review." [Yes]

P25: "Registration and protocol: The registration and protocol section should include a description of the registration number and the location of the review protocol." [Yes]

P26: "Supplementary material: The supplementary material section should include a description of any additional material that is available online." [NA]

P27: "Availability of data and code: The availability of data and code section should include a description of the availability of the data and code used in the review." [NA]

164. Wenk 2015: Incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernias in children following unilateral repair — A meta-analysis of prospective studies

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 0 0 1 NA NA NA NA 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* Quote: "The aim of the present meta-analysis study is to systematically appraise the incidence of metachronous contralateral childhood inguinal hernia following unilateral inguinal hernia repair using data from well-designed prospective studies."
* Reasoning: The aim of the study is clearly stated, and the authors mention that they will use data from prospective studies, indicating that an 'a priori' design was provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* Quote: "Thirteen prospective studies were not included because of short or undefined follow-up [16–24], bilateral explorations in a subgroup of patients [25,26], and incorrect calculation of MCIH [27] (Appendix 2. Table A1 and Appendix 3. Figure A1). Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28--32]."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they excluded studies due to short or undefined follow-up, bilateral explorations, and incorrect calculation of MCIH, indicating that there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
* Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* Quote: "The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library Issue 7 of 12, July 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2014) and EMBASE (1947 to August 2014) were searched (Appendix 1 for detailed search strategy). The search was restricted to English and German articles."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that they searched three electronic sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) and restricted the search to English and German articles, indicating that a comprehensive literature search was performed.
* Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* Quote: "The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library Issue 7 of 12, July 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2014) and EMBASE (1947 to August 2014) were searched (Appendix 1 for detailed search strategy). The search was restricted to English and German articles."
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished literature, and they restricted the search to English and German articles, indicating that the status of publication was not used as an inclusion criterion.
* Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* Quote: "Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28--32]."
* Reasoning: The authors mention the six studies that met the inclusion criteria, but they do not provide a list of excluded studies.
* Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* Quote: "In total 1669 children were included. Of this number 1405 (84%) were male and 264 (16%) were female. Nine hundred forty-five (57%) children had right-sided hernia and 545 (33%) children had left-sided hernia at first presentation."
* Reasoning: The authors provide the number of children included, their sex, and the side of hernia at first presentation, indicating that the characteristics of the included studies were provided.
* Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies, and they do not provide a quality scoring tool or checklist.
* Response: [NA]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention using the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions, and they do not provide a quality scoring tool or checklist.
* Response: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention combining the findings of studies, and they do not provide a test to ensure the studies were combinable or assess their homogeneity.
* Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing publication bias, and they do not provide a funnel plot or statistical tests.
* Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* Quote: "Source of funding: There was no funding to the present study."
* Reasoning: The authors mention that there was no funding to the present study, but they do not mention the source of funding or support for each of the included studies.
* Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* Quote: "Incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernias in children following unilateral repair — A meta-analysis of prospective studies"
* Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* Quote: See full text.
* Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.
* Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* Quote: "The risk for MCIH seems to be higher in younger children and after initial left-sided hernia [4--6]. This prompts many surgeons to perform a prophylactic surgical exploration of the contralateral side for many years, especially in neonates [7]. The chance of having a contralateral PPV (CPPV) is about 30% and depends on the age of the patient [2,8,9]."
* Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* Quote: "The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the incidence of a metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) in children with unilateral inguinal hernia and therefore to propose or to reject routine contralateral groin exploration."
* Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
* Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
* Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* Quote: "Inclusion criteria consisted of prospective observational studies (a), with minimal follow-up time of one year (b), assessing newborns, infants, children, adolescents and young adults, aged from 0 to 19 years (c), without contralateral groin exploration or laparoscopic closure of CPPV (d). Exclusion criteria were retrospective studies, studies with short follow-up, studies without available full text, and studies written in languages other than English or German."
* Reasoning: The methods specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* Quote: "The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library Issue 7 of 12, July 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2014) and EMBASE (1947 to August 2014) were searched (Appendix 1 for detailed search strategy). The search was restricted to English and German articles."
* Reasoning: The methods describe all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
* Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
* Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* Quote: "Thirteen prospective studies were not included because of short or undefined follow-up [16--24], bilateral explorations in a subgroup of patients [25,26], and incorrect calculation of MCIH [27] (Appendix 2. Table A1 and Appendix 3. Figure A1). Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28--32]."
* Reasoning: The methods state the process for selecting studies.
* Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not list and define all variables for which data were sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
* Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies or how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
* Response: [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
* Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies or measures of consistency.
* Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* Quote: "Thirteen prospective studies were not included because of short or undefined follow-up [16--24], bilateral explorations in a subgroup of patients [25,26], and incorrect calculation of MCIH [27] (Appendix 2. Table A1 and Appendix 3. Figure A1). Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28--32]."
* Reasoning: The results give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* Quote: "In total 1669 children were included. Of this number 1405 (84%) were male and 264 (16%) were female. Nine hundred forty-five (57%) children had right-sided hernia and 545 (33%) children had left-sided hernia at first presentation."
* Reasoning: The results present characteristics for which data were extracted, but they do not provide the citations.
* Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
* Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
* Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* Quote: Not applicable.
* Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
* Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* Quote: "The overall incidence of MCIH following unilateral inguinal hernia repair in children is 6%. Initial left-sided hernia (8.5%) and open CPV (13.8%) are risk factors for MCIH development. Female gender (8.2%) and younger age (b 1 year) (6.9%) non-significantly increase the risk of MCIH."
* Reasoning: The discussion summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
* Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* Quote: "The number of dropouts was very different between studies. The method of follow-up was also different including annual clinical investigation [29], phone call and clinical visits [7,30,31] clinical visits, phone call, letter, or e-mail [32] and in one case it was not specified [28]. Minimal length of follow-up of included studies ranged from 12 months [30] to 4 years [29]. Only 50% or less of MCIHs were shown to occur within one year [5,31,33]. MCIH was not increased when length of follow-up was restricted to 2 or 3 years, respectively. This finding might be explained by increasing number of drop-outs over time. Finally, MCIH event numbers for several subgroups were not reported by all included studies. As a consequence, subgroup analysis in this paper comprised only a proportion of all patients."
* Reasoning: The discussion discusses limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level.
* Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* Quote: "The present meta-analysis shows that the overall risk of MCIH in children (aged 0--19 years) is 6%. The risk of MCIH development is significantly greater in children with initial left-sided hernia (8.5% vs. 3.3%) and in children with open CPV (13.8% vs. 3%). Further risk factors may well include female gender (8.2 vs. 4.1%) and young age (b 1 year) (6.9% vs. 4.5%). Other putative risk factors such as prematurity, increased intraabdominal pressure (ascites, ventriculoperitoneal shunt, peritoneal dialysis) and connective tissue disorders were not assessed in the present analysis."
* Reasoning: The discussion provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
* Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* Quote: "Source of funding: There was no funding to the present study."
* Reasoning: The funding section describes sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
* Response: [Yes]

165. Wilkinson 2012: Outcomes in distal hypospadias: A systematic review of the Mathieu and tubularized incised plate repairs

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

Minor score formatting issues fixed during extraction: ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’

A1: [Yes], the review was conducted by two independent reviewers.

A2: [Yes], the review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

A3: [Yes], the review included a comprehensive search strategy that was developed in consultation with a medical librarian.

A4: [Yes], the review included a risk of bias assessment for each included study.

A5: [Yes], the review included a meta-analysis of the data.

A6: [Yes], the review included a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results.

A7: [Yes], the review included a discussion of the limitations of the study.

A8: [Yes], the review included a discussion of the implications of the study.

A9: [Yes], the review included a quantitative synthesis of the data.

A10: [Yes], the review included a assessment of the quality of the evidence.

A11: [Yes], the review included a assessment of the publication bias.

P1: [Yes], the review included a structured question.

P2: [Yes], the review included a comprehensive search strategy.

P3: [Yes], the review included a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

P4: [Yes], the review included a description of the selection process.

P5: [Yes], the review included a description of the data extraction process.

P6: [Yes], the review included a description of the risk of bias assessment.

P7: [Yes], the review included a description of the statistical methods used.

P8: [Yes], the review included a description of the results.

P9: [Yes], the review included a discussion of the results.

P10: [Yes], the review included a conclusion.

P11: [Yes], the review included a list of references.

P12: [Yes], the review included a description of the study characteristics.

P13: [Yes], the review included a description of the participant characteristics.

P14: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes], the review included a description of the interventions.

P18: [Yes], the review included a description of the outcomes.

P19: [Yes], the review included a description of the effect sizes.

P20: [Yes], the review included a description of the heterogeneity.

P21: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA], the review did not include a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes], the review included a description of the limitations.

P25: [Yes], the review included a description of the implications.

P26: [Yes], the review included a description of the funding sources.

P27: [Yes], the review included a description of the conflicts of interest.

166. Wright 2013: Effect of Preoperative Hormonal Stimulation on Postoperative Complication Rates After Proximal Hypospadias Repair: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 NA 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 1 1 0 1 1 NA 1 1 1 NA

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 95.8%)

8 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”

* "We comprehensively searched the published and un-published literature between 1990 and 2010. Eligibility criteria were applied." (Fulltext)
* The review provides information about the search strategy and eligibility criteria, but it does not explicitly state that these were established before the conduct of the review.
* [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.

* "Title, abstract and full text screening was carried out by 2 independent authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus." (Fulltext)
* The review states that two independent authors performed title, abstract, and full text screening and resolved discrepancies by consensus.
* [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).

* "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Data-base of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010. A gray literature search of conference abstracts was also performed." (Fulltext)
* The review states that they conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and also performed a gray literature search.
* [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.

* "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Data-base of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010. A gray literature search of conference abstracts was also performed." (Fulltext)
* The review states that they conducted a gray literature search, but it does not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type.
* [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”

* "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram." (PRISMA)
* The review does not provide a list of included and excluded studies, but it does provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review with reasons for exclusions at each stage in a flow diagram format.
* [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.

* "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations." (PRISMA)
* The review provides characteristics of the included studies in a table format, including study size, PICOS, and follow-up period.
* [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).

* "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis." (PRISMA)
* The review states that they assessed risk of bias of individual studies, but it does not provide information on the methods used for this assessment or how the information was used in data synthesis.
* [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.

* "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)." (PRISMA)
* The review summarizes the main findings and considers their relevance to key groups, but it does not explicitly state how the results of methodological rigor and scientific quality were considered in the analysis and conclusions.
* [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.

* "Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis." (PRISMA)
* The review states that they used random effects models to account for between-study heterogeneity, but it does not provide information on the methods used to ensure studies were combinable or assess their homogeneity.
* [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.

* "Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)." (PRISMA)
* The review states that they assessed risk of bias, but it does not provide information on the methods used for this assessment or how publication bias was assessed.
* [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.

* "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review." (PRISMA)
* The review states that they described sources of funding for the systematic review, but it does not provide information on the sources of funding or support for each of the included studies.
* [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

* "Pediatric Urology Effect of Preoperative Hormonal Stimulation on Postoperative Complication Rates After Proximal Hypospadias Repair: A Systematic Review" (Fulltext)
* The review identifies itself as a systematic review in the title.
* [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

* "Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on complication rates following proximal hypospadias repair. Materials and Methods: We comprehensively searched the published and un-published literature between 1990 and 2010. Eligibility criteria were applied. Title, abstract and full text screening was carried out by 2 independent authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Heterogeneity between studies was tested using Cochran chi-square Q test and quantified by calculating I 2 . Quality appraisal of included studies was performed. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate using a random effects model. Results: Our search yielded 288 citations, of which 11 (622 patients) met inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the systematic review. Most series were retrospective observational studies of moderate or low methodological quality. Of the patients 45% underwent administration of preoperative hormonal stimulation, with intramuscular testosterone being the most commonly prescribed formulation. Four studies addressed postoperative complication rate stratified by preoperative hormonal stimulation use and were included in a meta-analysis. The odds ratio for a complication occurring with preoperative hormonal stimulation use was 1.67 (CI 0.96 –2.91, p  0.07, I 
2 
 0%). No persistent side effects due to preoperative hormonal stimulation were reported. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the only systematic review and meta-analysis thus far that has critically assessed the effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on operative outcomes after hypospadias repair. The published literature is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details. The effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on operative outcomes after hypospadias repair remains unclear and requires further investigation." (Fulltext)
* The review provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings in the abstract.
* [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

* "Pediatric urologists and surgeons have used preoperative hormonal stimulation (PHS) for decades to improve success rates of surgical intervention for hypospadias. However, the use of PHS remains controversial due to potential negative side effects and concerns about its impact on wound healing. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the current data on the impact of PHS on surgical outcomes after reconstruction of proximal defects." (Fulltext)
* The review describes the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
* [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

* "The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the current data on the impact of preoperative hormonal stimulation (PHS) on surgical outcomes after reconstruction of proximal defects in patients with hypospadias." (Fulltext)
* The review provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
* [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on the existence of a review protocol or its registration number.
* [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

* "Predetermined criteria for study inclusion consisted of 1) publication between 1990 and 2010, 2) focus on human subjects, 3) hypospadias as primary diagnosis, 4) exposure of patients to some form of hormonal stimulation preoperatively or postoperatively, 5) performance of surgical repair, 6) reporting of postoperative complications and 7) clinical research designation. All study types were included in the review. English language was not used as an eligibility criterion to avoid language bias." (Fulltext)
* The review specifies study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
* [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

* "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Data-base of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010. A gray literature search of conference abstracts was also performed." (Fulltext)
* The review describes all information sources in the search and date last searched.
* [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used.
* [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

* "Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by 2 authors to select all citations that might contain comparisons of interest. Full text of each included article was obtained and data were abstracted independently by 2 authors. All screening results were reviewed for concordance and all discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Study selection was not blinded, as concealment has not been found to have a significant effect on the final results of systematic reviews." (Fulltext)
* The review states the process for selecting studies.
* [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

* "Data extraction was completed in duplicate and reviewed for accuracy and quality. When data for a particular study were unclear or missing from the article, we attempted to contact the authors. Unfortunately in some cases we were unable to obtain any additional information." (Fulltext)
* The review describes the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
* [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought, assumptions and simplifications made.
* [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

* "Quality appraisal of the included studies was carried out by 2 independent reviewers using a quality assessment instrument adopted from Elyas et al, modified to fit the objectives of this study. All discrepancies were resolved through third-party review of the methodology. Study rating was determined by dividing the number of criteria met (indicated as “Yes”) by the total number of quality assurance criteria in the instrument (13), obtaining a percentage result. The data were then segregated into studies that met less than 25% of the quality criteria (very low quality), 25% to 49% (low quality), 50% to 74% (moderate quality) and more than 75% (high methodological quality)." (Fulltext)
* The review describes methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
* [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
* [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

* "Attempts were made to compile and summarize the results providing clinically meaningful information and, as such, not all included studies are used in every table. Where appropriate, data were compiled using means, standard deviations, counts and percentages. Due to expected differences in observational designs, we planned a priori to use random effects models to account for between study heterogeneity for single group and comparative cohort studies. Heterogeneity between studies was tested using the Cochran chi-square Q test with a p value set at 0.1 and quantified using the I 2 statistic, which represents the percentage of total variation across included studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Publication bias was graphically assessed by constructing funnel plots depicting precision (standard error) plotted against the proportion of complications. The DerSimonian-Laird method was followed to estimate the pooled weighted complication proportion of the included studies. We used StatsDirect statistical software to calculate the pooled weighted proportions. For single group studies with subgroup analysis of PHS use and for comparative studies of PHS use we analyzed data with a random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate OR and 95% CI for complication as primary outcome measure. RevMan, version 5.1 (Cochrane IMS, Oxford, England) was used to calculate ORs. A p value of 0.05 was set for statistical significance." (Fulltext)
* The review describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
* [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Publication bias was graphically assessed by constructing funnel plots depicting precision (standard error) plotted against the proportion of complications." (Fulltext)
* The review specifies assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on methods of additional analyses.
* [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

* "The initial search strategy yielded 288 articles. After title and abstract screening 27 articles were selected for full text review. A gray literature search identified only 1 study from the 2008 American Uro-
logical Association annual meeting proceedings. Of the resultant 28 studies 2 were commentaries and 2 required translation (1 Spanish, 1 French). Full text review and application of eligibility criteria led to exclusion of 17 studies, leaving 11 for inclusion in our systematic review." (Fulltext)
* The review gives numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
* [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

* "Demographic data are outlined in table 1. A total of 622 patients were included, of whom 283 (45%) received some form of PHS. All patients underwent 1 of 5 surgical techniques, which included OIF (323 patients, 52%), TIP (134, 22%), Koyanagi urethroplasty (95, 15%), 2-stage repair (44, 7%) and buccal mucosa graft repair (26, 4%)." (Fulltext)
* The review presents characteristics for which data were extracted for each study and provides the citations.
* [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).

* "Quality appraisal of the included studies was carried out by 2 independent reviewers using a quality assessment instrument adopted from Elyas et al, modified to fit the objectives of this study. All discrepancies were resolved through third-party review of the methodology. Study rating was determined by dividing the number of criteria met (indicated as “Yes”) by the total number of quality assurance criteria in the instrument (13), obtaining a percentage result. The data were then segregated into studies that met less than 25% of the quality criteria (very low quality), 25% to 49% (low quality), 50% to 74% (moderate quality) and more than 75% (high methodological quality)." (Fulltext)
* The review presents data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment.
* [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

* "Data are presented as a percentage rate of complications in a given patient cohort. Analysis was conducted in the context of PHS administration wherever stratified data were available. We accepted variations in the protocol for administration, type of PHS and duration of therapy. Data on surgical technique, preoperative urethral meatus location, age at surgery and duration of followup were collected." (Fulltext)
* The review presents results of individual studies for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), but it does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group, effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
* [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

* "The odds ratio for a complication occurring with preoperative hormonal stimulation use was 1.67 (CI 0.96 –2.91, p  0.07, I 
2 
 0%)." (Fulltext)
* The review presents results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
* [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

* "Publication bias was graphically assessed by constructing funnel plots depicting precision (standard error) plotted against the proportion of complications." (Fulltext)
* The review presents results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
* [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on results of additional analyses.
* [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

* "The published literature is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details. The effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on operative outcomes after hypospadias repair remains unclear and requires further investigation." (Fulltext)
* The review summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considers their relevance to key groups.
* [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

* "The primary outcome of our systematic review was complication rate in the context of PHS therapy. To properly assess the effect of PHS on surgical outcomes, the indication, agent, dose, and time between administration of PHS and surgery would have to be documented. Unfortunately this informa-
tion was often lacking in the included reports." (Fulltext)
* The review discusses limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
* [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

* "To our knowledge this is the only systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effect of PHS on operative outcomes after hypospadias repair. The published literature generally is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details. As a result, no strong conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of PHS on surgical outcomes. However, the data are worrisome because they suggest an adverse impact on complications. Randomized controlled trials, standardized dosing protocols, and complete and consistent reporting are necessary for the development of future treatment guidelines." (Fulltext)
* The review provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
* [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

* "Not applicable" (Fulltext)
* The review does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
* [NA]

167. Yang 2011: Laparoscopic vs open herniorrhaphy in the management of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 64.7%)

14 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 48.8%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1:
1. "The reviewers used the AMSTAR tool to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews."
2. The reviewers used the AMSTAR tool to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews.
3. [Yes]

A2:
1. "The reviewers used the PRISMA tool to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews."
2. The reviewers used the PRISMA tool to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews.
3. [Yes]

A3:
1. "The reviewers used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A4:
1. "The reviewers used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A5:
1. "The reviewers used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A6:
1. "The reviewers used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A7:
1. "The reviewers used the Jadad scale to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the Jadad scale to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies.
3. [No]

A8:
1. "The reviewers used the CONSORT tool to assess the reporting quality of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used the CONSORT tool to assess the reporting quality of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A9:
1. "The reviewers used quantitative synthesis to combine the results of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers did not use quantitative synthesis to combine the results of the primary studies.
3. [No]

A10:
1. "The reviewers used qualitative synthesis to combine the results of the primary studies."
2. The reviewers used qualitative synthesis to combine the results of the primary studies.
3. [Yes]

A11:
1. "The reviewers assessed publication bias in the primary studies."
2. The reviewers did not assess publication bias in the primary studies.
3. [No]

P1:
1. "The reviewers provided a structured summary of the systematic review."
2. The reviewers provided a structured summary of the systematic review.
3. [Yes]

P2:
1. "The reviewers provided a rationale for the review."
2. The reviewers provided a rationale for the review.
3. [Yes]

P3:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the information sources."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the information sources.
3. [Yes]

P4:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the search strategy."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the search strategy.
3. [Yes]

P5:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the eligibility criteria."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the eligibility criteria.
3. [Yes]

P6:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the selection process."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the selection process.
3. [Yes]

P7:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the data extraction process."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the data extraction process.
3. [Yes]

P8:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the data items."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the data items.
3. [Yes]

P9:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias assessment."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias assessment.
3. [Yes]

P10:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the effect measures."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the effect measures.
3. [Yes]

P11:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis methods."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis methods.
3. [Yes]

P12:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the results of individual studies."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the results of individual studies.
3. [Yes]

P13:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results.
3. [Yes]

P14:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in individual studies.
3. [No]

P15:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in the review."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in the review.
3. [No]

P16:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review.
3. [Yes]

P17:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P18:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results.
3. [Yes]

P19:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in individual studies.
3. [No]

P20:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in the review."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in the review.
3. [No]

P21:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review.
3. [Yes]

P22:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

P23:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the synthesis of results.
3. [Yes]

P24:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in individual studies."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in individual studies.
3. [No]

P25:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the risk of bias in the review."
2. The reviewers did not provide a description of the risk of bias in the review.
3. [No]

P26:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the limitations of the review.
3. [Yes]

P27:
1. "The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review."
2. The reviewers provided a description of the results of the review.
3. [Yes]

168. Yang 2013: Postoperative intussusceptions in children and infants: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 0 1 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

38 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 99.4%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. "A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
- The full text does not provide an 'a priori' design.
- Response: [No]

A2. "A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work."
- The full text does not provide information on duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. "A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary)."
- The full text describes a search of the MEDLINE database and a manual search of reference lists.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. "A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose."
- The full text does not provide information on the inclusion of grey literature.
- Response: [No]

A5. "A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”"
- The full text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. "A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above."
- The full text provides a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. "A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable)."
- The full text does not provide information on the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. "A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7."
- The full text does not provide information on the use of scientific quality in formulating conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. "A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions."
- The full text does not provide information on the methods used to combine the findings of studies.
- Response: [NA]

A10. "A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”."
- The full text does not provide information on the assessment of publication bias.
- Response: [NA]

A11. "A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies."
- The full text does not provide information on the conflict of interest.
- Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. "P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."
- The full text identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. "P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number."
- The full text provides a structured abstract with the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. "P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."
- The full text provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. "P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."
- The full text provides an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. "P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."
- The full text does not provide information on a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. "P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
- The full text does not provide information on study characteristics or report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [No]

P7. "P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched."
- The full text describes the MEDLINE database and a manual search of reference lists as information sources.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. "P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
- The full text does not provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
- Response: [No]

P9. "P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."
- The full text does not provide information on the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [No]

P10. "P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
- The full text does not provide information on the data collection process.
- Response: [No]

P11. "P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
- The full text does not provide information on the data items.
- Response: [No]

P12. "P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
- The full text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. "P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
- The full text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. "P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis."
- The full text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [NA]

P15. "P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."
- The full text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [NA]

P16. "P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified."
- The full text does not provide information on additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P17. "P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
- The full text does not provide a flow diagram or numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Response: [No]

P18. "P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
- The full text provides characteristics for which data were extracted for each study and provides the citations.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. "P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)."
- The full text does not provide data on risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. "P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot."
- The full text does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. "P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."
- The full text does not provide results of each meta-analysis done.
- Response: [NA]

P22. "P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15)."
- The full text does not provide results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [NA]

P23. "P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16])."
- The full text does not provide results of additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P24. "P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
- The full text summarizes the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and considers their relevance to key groups.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. "P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
- The full text discusses limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. "P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."
- The full text provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. "P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
- The full text does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
- Response: [No]

169. Youssef 2016: Flap versus fascial closure for gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 NA 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1


LLM response

13 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 46.4%)

25 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 53.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

A1: "The review was conducted by two independent reviewers." [Yes]

A2: "A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) and search terms related to gastroschisis and delayed primary closure." [Yes]

A3: "Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria." [Yes]

A4: "Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers using a standardized data extraction form." [Yes]

A5: "The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale." [Yes]

A6: "A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall effect of delayed primary closure on outcomes in gastroschisis." [Yes]

A7: "Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I^2 statistic and Cochran's Q test." [Yes]

A8: "Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test." [NA]

A9: "The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines." [Yes]

A10: "The review was registered in the PROSPERO database prior to initiation." [NA]

A11: "Conflicts of interest were reported for all authors." [Yes]

P1: "Title: The title of the review is specific, contains the key words 'gastroschisis' and 'delayed primary closure', and indicates that it is a systematic review." [Yes]

P2: "Abstract: The abstract includes the objective, methods, results, and conclusions of the review." [Yes]

P3: "Introduction: The introduction includes a clear statement of the review's objective and a rationale for the review." [Yes]

P4: "Methods: The methods section includes a description of the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessment." [Yes]

P5: "Methods: The methods section includes information about the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review." [Yes]

P6: "Methods: The methods section includes a description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract the data." [Yes]

P7: "Methods: The methods section includes a description of the quality assessment process, including the tool used and the criteria for assessing study quality." [Yes]

P8: "Methods: The methods section includes a description of the statistical methods used to analyze the data, including the measures of effect and the methods used to assess heterogeneity and publication bias." [Yes]

P9: "Results: The results section includes a description of the characteristics of the included studies, including the number of studies, the study designs, and the patient populations." [Yes]

P10: "Results: The results section includes a description of the outcomes of the review, including the effect of delayed primary closure on gastroschisis outcomes." [Yes]

P11: "Results: The results section includes a description of the heterogeneity among studies, including the I^2 statistic and Cochran's Q test." [Yes]

P12: "Results: The results section includes a description of the publication bias, including funnel plots and Egger's regression test." [NA]

P13: "Discussion: The discussion includes a summary of the review's findings, a comparison of the review's findings with those of other studies, and a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the review." [Yes]

P14: "Discussion: The discussion includes a discussion of the implications of the review's findings for clinical practice and future research." [Yes]

P15: "Discussion: The discussion includes a statement of the review's conclusions, including the effect of delayed primary closure on gastroschisis outcomes." [Yes]

P16: "Funding: The review includes a statement of the sources of funding for the review and the role of the funder in the review." [NA]

P17: "Conflicts of interest: The review includes a statement of conflicts of interest for all authors." [Yes]

P18: "Registration: The review includes a statement of registration in the PROSPERO database, including the registration number." [NA]

P19: "Protocol and registration: The review includes a statement of adherence to a published protocol, including the protocol registration number." [NA]

P20: "Search: The review includes a description of the search strategy, including the databases searched, the search terms used, and the date range of the search." [Yes]

P21: "Study selection: The review includes a description of the study selection process, including the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review." [Yes]

P22: "Data extraction: The review includes a description of the data extraction process, including the variables extracted and the methods used to extract the data." [Yes]

P23: "Quality assessment: The review includes a description of the quality assessment process, including the tool used and the criteria for assessing study quality." [Yes]

P24: "Risk of bias: The review includes a description of the risk of bias in the included studies, including the methods used to assess risk of bias and the results of the assessment." [NA]

P25: "Summary measures: The review includes a description of the summary measures used to analyze the data, including the measures of effect and the methods used to pool the data." [Yes]

P26: "Synthesis of results: The review includes a description of the methods used to synthesize the results, including the statistical methods used to pool the data and the methods used to assess heterogeneity and publication bias." [Yes]

P27: "Additional analyses: The review includes a description of any additional analyses performed, including subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses." [Yes]

170. Zani 2015: Is single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery more painful than standard laparoscopy in children? Personal experience and review of the literature.

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA NA 0 NA 0 NA NA NA 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.6%)

39 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 91%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?

AMSTAR:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
> "The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
Relevant quote: "Aim: it has been speculated that single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) in children could result in more postoperative pain given the device size for a child umbilicus."
Reasoning: The research question is provided, but there is no mention of an 'a priori' design or protocol.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
> "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."
Relevant quote: "Patients who underwent SIPES via Olympus TriPort™ Access system between 2010 and 2011 were prospectively compared with SL controls (similar age, sex and type of operation)."
Reasoning: The text mentions prospective comparison of SIPES and SL controls, but it does not explicitly state that there were two independent data extractors or a consensus procedure for disagreements.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
> "At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided."
Relevant quote: "The two orchidopexy procedures were a first- and second-stage Fowler-Stephens procedure on the same (left) testicle of a patient who had previously undergone liver transplant. In this child, SIPES was opted in order to minimise access to an abdomen full of adhesions and with a large liver."
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the literature search strategy, databases used, or keywords.
Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
> "The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature.
Response: [NA]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
> "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."
Relevant quote: "The 10 SIPES procedures were compared with 10 similar SL procedures, performed in children possibly of similar age, weight and vendor (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The text provides a comparison of 10 SIPES procedures with 10 SL procedures, but it does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
> "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."
Relevant quote: "The age at surgery of patients who underwent SIPES (9 years, range 6-13) was not different from that of patients who had SL procedures (11 years, range 8-14, P=0.74)."
Reasoning: The text provides some characteristics of the included studies, but it does not provide a comprehensive table of participant, intervention, and outcome characteristics.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
> "'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant."
Relevant quote: "All patients received local anesthesia (levobupivacaine 25 mg/mL, maximum dose 2.5/kg) via transmural injection before trocar insertion."
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the scientific quality of the included studies or the methods used to assess their quality.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
> "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
Relevant quote: "Conclusion: SIPES does not seem to be associated with more postoperative pain than SL in children. In appropriate cases, SIPES is a valid alternative to SL for a good range of pediatric procedures."
Reasoning: The text formulates conclusions based on the results of the study, but it does not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was considered in formulating these conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
> "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?)."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of any statistical methods to combine the findings of studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
> "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
> "Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."
Relevant quote: "The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript."
Reasoning: The text states that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization, but it does not provide information about potential sources of support for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]

PRISMA:

P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
> "The title should indicate that the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."
Relevant quote: "ORIGINAL ARTICLES MINERVA PEDIATR 2035,67:457-463 Is single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery more painful than standard laparoscopy in children? Personal experience and review of the literature"
Reasoning: The title does not indicate that the report is a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Response: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
> "The abstract should provide a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings."
Relevant quote: "Abstract: Single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) has been introduced in pediatric surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative pain in children who underwent SIPES or standard laparoscopy (SL)."
Reasoning: The abstract provides some information about the background, objectives, and results of the study, but it does not provide a comprehensive structured summary.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
> "The introduction should describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."
Relevant quote: "Aim: it has been speculated that single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) in children could result in more postoperative pain given the device size for a child umbilicus."
Reasoning: The text provides a rationale for the review, but it does not describe the rationale in the context of what is already known.
Response: [No]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
> "The introduction should provide an explicit statement of the review questions or objectives, with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."
Relevant quote: "Aim: it has been speculated that single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) in children could result in more postoperative pain given the device size for a child umbilicus."
Reasoning: The text provides an aim, but it does not explicitly state the review questions or objectives with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
> "The methods section should indicate if a review protocol exists, where it can be accessed, and provide registration information including registration number if available."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the existence of a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [NA]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
> "The methods section should specify the study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
Relevant quote: "Patients who underwent SIPES via Olympus TriPort™ Access system between 2010 and 2011 were prospectively compared with SL controls (similar age, sex and type of operation)."
Reasoning: The text provides some information about the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility, but it does not provide a comprehensive list with rationale.
Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
> "The methods section should describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the information sources used in the search or the date last searched.
Response: [NA]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
> "The methods section should present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the search strategy used.
Response: [NA]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
> "The methods section should state the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."
Relevant quote: "Patients who underwent SIPES via Olympus TriPort™ Access system between 2010 and 2011 were prospectively compared with SL controls (similar age, sex and type of operation)."
Reasoning: The text provides some information about the study selection process, but it does not provide a comprehensive description of the process.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
> "The methods section should describe the method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the data collection process.
Response: [NA]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
> "The methods section should list and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the data items sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
Response: [NA]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
> "The methods section should describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level) and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [NA]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
> "The methods section should state the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the principal summary measures.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
> "The methods section should describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of any statistical methods to combine the findings of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
> "The methods section should specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies)."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
> "The methods section should describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
> "The results section should give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [NA]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
> "The results section should present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations for each study."
Relevant quote: "The two orchidopexy procedures were a first- and second-stage Fowler-Stephens procedure on the same (left) testicle of a patient who had previously undergone liver transplant. In this child, SIPES was opted in order to minimise access to an abdomen full of adhesions and with a large liver."
Reasoning: The text provides some information about the characteristics of the studies, but it does not provide a comprehensive list for each study.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
> "The results section should present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the risk of bias within studies.
Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
> "The results section should present, for all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study, ideally with a forest plot."
Relevant quote: "The age at surgery of patients who underwent SIPES (9 years, range 6-13) was not different from that of patients who had SL procedures (11 years, range 8-14, P=0.74)."
Reasoning: The text provides some information about the results of individual studies, but it does not provide a comprehensive list of simple summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group and each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
> "The results section should present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of any statistical methods to combine the findings of studies.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (see Item P15).
> "The results section should present results of any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).
> "The results section should give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)."
Relevant quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
> "The discussion section should summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome and consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
Relevant quote: "Conclusion: SIPES does not seem to be associated with more postoperative pain than SL in children. In appropriate cases, SIPES is a valid alternative to SL for a good range of pediatric procedures."
Reasoning: The text provides a summary of the main findings, but it does not explicitly state the strength of evidence for each main outcome or consider their relevance to key groups.
Response: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
> "The discussion section should discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
Relevant quote: "Limitations: The study has some limitations, including the small sample size and the lack of a control group for the SIPES procedures."
Reasoning: The text discusses some limitations of the study, but it does not provide a comprehensive list of limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
> "The discussion section should provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research."
Relevant quote: "Conclusion: SIPES does not seem to be associated with more postoperative pain than SL in children. In appropriate cases, SIPES is a valid alternative to SL for a good range of pediatric procedures."
Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research, but it does not explicitly state the implications in the context of other evidence.
Response: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
> "The funding section should describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data) and role of funders for the systematic review."
Relevant quote: "The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript."
Reasoning: The text states that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization, but it does not provide information about sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
Response: [No]

172. Zhu 2016: Minimally invasive surgery for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (Mixtral-8x7B, 2nd run) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

A1: [Yes] The systematic review clearly states that it is a systematic review.

A2: [Yes] The systematic review includes a search strategy with a clear description of the databases used, search terms, and date limits.

A3: [Yes] The systematic review includes a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies.

A4: [Yes] The systematic review includes a list of included studies with sufficient information to allow for replication.

A5: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.

A6: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to combine the results of the included studies.

A7: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the publication bias of the included studies.

A8: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies.

A9: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.

A10: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.

A11: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.

P1: [Yes] The systematic review includes a structured summary of the review.

P2: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the rationale for the review.

P3: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the objectives of the review.

P4: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies.

P5: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the search strategy used to identify studies.

P6: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.

P7: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to extract data from the included studies.

P8: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

P9: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies.

P10: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to synthesize the results of the included studies.

P11: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the risk of publication bias in the included studies.

P12: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the risk of selective reporting in the included studies.

P13: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the methods used to assess the risk of other sources of bias in the included studies.

P14: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P15: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P16: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P17: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the characteristics of the included studies.

P18: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the results of the included studies.

P19: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the synthesis of the results of the included studies.

P20: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the risk of bias in the included studies.

P21: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P22: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P23: [NA] Not applicable as this is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.

P24: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the limitations of the review.

P25: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the implications of the review.

P26: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the funding of the review.

P27: [Yes] The systematic review includes a description of the conflicts of interest of the review.

Formatting accuracy

  • 82 / 92 (89.1%) usable responses with correctly formatted scores
  • 10 / 92 (10.9%) usable responses with minor fixable score formatting issues
    • 8 with ‘missing-squared-brackets-in-numbered-list’
    • 1 with ‘missing-squared-brackets-end-of-line’
    • 1 with ‘missing-squared-brackets-for-yes’
    • 1 with ‘not-applicable-missing-na-in-squared-brackets’
    • 1 with ‘unsolicited-ranges’

  • 88 / 112 (78.6%) publications yielded usable responses on the first try
  • 4 / 112 (3.6%) publications ultimately yielded usable responses after a median of 1.5 retries (range 1-2)
    • 3 responses with failure reason ‘no-scores’
    • 2 responses with failure reason ‘stopped-short’
    • 1 responses with failure reason ‘wrong-scores’
  • 20 / 112 (17.9%) publications yielded no usable responses and were thus ultimately unsuccessful after a median of 3 retries (range 3-3)
    • 48 responses with failure reason ‘empty’
    • 5 responses with failure reason ‘no-chain-of-thought’
    • 3 responses with failure reason ‘no-scores’
    • 3 responses with failure reason ‘stopped-short’
    • 1 responses with failure reason ‘exceeded-context-length’

Quoting accuracy

AMSTAR

  • 816 quotes for 80 / 92 (87%) publications, median 11 (IQR 9-11, range 1-23)
  • 199 / 816 (24.4%) perfect quotes from the publication full text
  • 125 / 816 (15.3%) perfect quotes from the LLM prompt briefing - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?
  • 492 / 816 (60.3%) quotes with deviations from source, where the accuracy was measured by a “normalized Levenshtein similarity” with custom weights, ranging from 0-100%
    • 63 minor deviations (95% ≤ similarity < 100%); mean: 98.9%
    • 56 moderate deviations (75% ≤ similarity < 95%); mean: 83.6%
    • 373 major deviations (similarity < 75%); mean: 50.7%

PRISMA

  • 1560 quotes for 80 / 92 (87%) publications, median 20.5 (IQR 12.75-27, range 1-50)
  • 255 / 1560 (16.3%) perfect quotes from the publication full text
  • 183 / 1560 (11.7%) perfect quotes from the LLM prompt briefing - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?
  • 1122 / 1560 (71.9%) quotes with deviations from source, where the accuracy was measured by a “normalized Levenshtein similarity” with custom weights, ranging from 0-100%
    • 108 minor deviations (95% ≤ similarity < 100%); mean: 98.8%
    • 154 moderate deviations (75% ≤ similarity < 95%); mean: 84.8%
    • 860 major deviations (similarity < 75%); mean: 49.8%

LLM prompt

System prompt

You are an expert in systematic reviews and are tasked to assess the methodological quality of a systematic review with the AMSTAR tool and its reporting quality with the PRISMA tool based on the full text of its publication. AMSTAR and PRISMA consist of the following items:

<AMSTAR>
A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.
A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies..
</AMSTAR>
<PRISMA>
P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
</PRISMA>

 

User prompt

This is the full text to be assessed:
<FULLTEXT>
%FULLTEXT%
</FULLTEXT>

For each of the 11 AMSTAR questions (A1 to A11) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond to the question with either "[Yes]" if adequate, "[No]" if inadequate, or "[NA]" if not applicable or not relevant to the text (for example, combining data in quantitative synthesis (A9) or assessing publication bias (A11) in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

For each of the PRISMA items (P1 to P27) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond with either "[Yes]" if the item was reported, "[No]" if not reported, or "[NA]" if not applicable (for example, items P14, P15, P16, P21, P22, P23 in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

Before stopping, make sure you've processed all 11 AMSTAR questions and 27 PRISMA items. Do not provide a final summary paragraph in the end.